Note to Namit:
I agree that anti-war should be an ethical default position. As you know, non-action is how I tend to go through my own life personally, and so in more abstract terms, it appeals to me a lot the way you say that anti-intervention, non-action and anti-war should be default settings.
Agree totally.
And yet, when you push this in terms of normative ethics, it can be troublesome when one is faced with certain situations. Nazi Germany is a good example. If one knows that there is a wrong occuring in which people are being killed or suffering is involved and that you have the capability to alleviate it, then suddenly non-action, non-intervention and anti-war become problematic from a moral point of view, no?
This is not to suggest that all intervention should be military or necessarily would involve violence. In the end to alleviate suffering and intervene is a moral imperative but I think it should be non-violent (searching for political solutions and offering financial help for refugges on a massive level, as you suggested). The EU and countries in the Middle East shouldtake the lead.
As you rightly guessed, I am praising Obama for his stance toward the mandate to protect and the war crimes charge.
Comments