philosophically political economics

CHALLENGING THE PARADIGM

Recently in PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) we were given the following analogy and asked to discuss it in a lecture.

'...Humanitarian interventions are seen as attempts at rescuing the innocent and helpless from persecution and extreme distress. We can dramatize its appeal by resort to a simple analogy. You are on your way home from work and you see a very strong man involved in an argument with his own child. It's noisy and unpleasant, but (you reason) it's their family and none of your business. But the dispute rapidly heats up and the man begins beating the child with a heavy stick. You protest and remonstrate with the man, but he tells you to get lost. He continues beating the child viciously, and indeed draws a knife and begins to brandish it at him. You fear for the child's life and as it happens you are (legitimately) carrying a gun. Surely you should threaten the father, and if the threats don't work, you are morally entitled to shoot...'

Later, in our tutorials we were given case studies from Rwanda or Kosovo, and asked to decide if intervention was justified. We were also asked to contemplate who and how it would be implemented. Military intervention almost always was the answer. This being the case, it is safe to assume that humanitarian intervention often results in mass killing, and even war.

Seems rather paradoxical doesn't it?