LogFAQs > #942226082

ssjevot posted...

Except you're falling back on the "if they support the right thing for the wrong reason, it's wrong" fallacy.

No, I'm making a plea to support the right thing for the right reason because: If people support it only because the government's fickle foreign policy has shone a spotlight on it, then (a) they'll lose interest as soon as the government does, and (b) they'll continue to ignore whatever their government doesn't want to spotlight -- and maybe even wants to hide. Supporting the right thing then becomes a hostage to political fortune, a pawn of politicians and policymakers pursuing their own agenda.

You've written: "If economic size factors into how much you care about or don't care about human rights abuses, you should rethink your moral priorities." Why doesn't that make you guilty of the same "if they support the right thing for the wrong reason, it's wrong" fallacy? Because you've said essentially what I've been saying. If you shackle your global concerns simply to whatever the government tells you is in this month's national interest, or to notions of patriotic sentiment, then that's neither a moral decision nor even necessarily a wise one. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to campaign against what the government tells you is in the national interest.

Yes, obviously it can be a good thing if -- for whatever reason -- the government or some organization highlights an issue you weren't aware of in a distant country that you know nothing about, and makes you want to talk about it and do something about it. I've campaigned on behalf of human rights organizations and I don't question the importance of raising awareness. But do it because it's the right thing to do, not because it fits the purposes of your government's foreign policy plans.

---

Watching the shadows burn