Word: moralizers
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...grownup book that captures the dark, Lord of the Flies side of childhood and classic children's literature. Harriet is a child, not a pint-size adult or supergirl. (She's Harriet, not Harriet the Spy.) She is smart but not wise, naive but not innocent, a stubborn moral absolutist who acts not out of Harry Potter bravery but out of love, prejudice and ignorance of the consequences of her actions. In contrast, her best friend and accomplice, Hely, a dim, happy, "normal" boy who loves James Bond and cartoons, treats the mission like a spy game...
...often--in Bosnia and Rwanda, for example--humanitarian workers have simply served as fig leaves, moral cover for big powers that did not want to get involved. As long as telegenic humanitarians put on a morally satisfying show of Western deus ex machina, caring for refugees on the 6:30 news, then governments can procrastinate. Take, for instance, the legal dithering of the Clinton Administration on Rwanda (where 800,000 dying in eight weeks amounted to an immense crime of omission): It depends on what the meaning of the word genocide...
...Sept. 30]? This would be a war involving millions of innocent people. Saddam would be safe and sound, while helpless Iraqis would experience the same horror that the victims of Sept. 11 did. Oil and politics are the factors that are deciding the fate of Iraq's people, not moral values. Where is our humanity? Look at the promises the U.S. made to Afghanistan before the war there. Afghan officials now claim there are not enough funds to build the promised infrastructure. Not enough funds? And the U.S. wants to start a new war? Is there something wrong with this...
Glover received his academic training in ethics, spending thirty years at the University of Oxford before taking his present position at King’s College. He has written several books in the subject, including Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century...
...That may be the compromise the U.S. and Israel ultimately reach. But it's the wrong one. First and foremost, asking Israel to forswear any response to an unprovoked Iraqi attack is a policy without any strategic or moral foundation, as even Arab leaders would agree. While Israeli intervention would have a short-term, inflammatory effect on Arab opinion, the rage would fade if (and it's still a big if) the U.S. removes Saddam quickly and convinces the world that its interest is to stabilize Iraq, not colonize it. The risks to Iraqi civilians - and to U.S. troops - posed...