tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637840.post4978043328926986598..comments2023-10-06T03:58:04.867+01:00Comments on Shuggy's Blog: For Eric HobsbawmUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637840.post-51021187207171369172012-10-04T19:00:20.764+01:002012-10-04T19:00:20.764+01:00I think Chris Dillow's comparison is a little ...I think Chris Dillow's comparison is a little off. He analyses Hobsbawm's utilitarianism as weighing deaths against future happiness of the living - things so different that an exchange rate seems impossible to define - whereas the utilitarian arguments in defence of dropping A bombs on Japan in 1945 and invading Iraq in '03 weigh estimated deaths as a consequence of those actions against estimated deaths as a consequence of not acting, more like with like comparisons than Hobsbawm's, though ultimately unmeasurable as history tests only one outcome.<br /><br />kelliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503738414917449549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637840.post-76262604300354670392012-10-02T23:58:10.262+01:002012-10-02T23:58:10.262+01:00Absolutely. It was his later work that slipped int...Absolutely. It was his later work that slipped into a rather academically poor bout of apologia.<br /><br />You nail the response to Ignatieff, but I would differ slightly. There are two objections to his position, one is the sheer scale of the terror, but the most important one is that Stalinist terror could never have achieved the ends it purported to be bringing about. The invasion of Iraq and the use of nuclear weapons both could, and did. Both aims and methods were more limited. But this was not the question he was asked. It was simply a utilitarian one, like was the death of 50 million worth it to defeat the Nazis, but based on a counterfactual.<br /><br />I think it is the smugness that irritates me the most though.The Plumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09244528534476387323noreply@blogger.com