Moral math game time!

The biggest problem, or perhaps the most wonderful aspect, of having several thought provoking conversations and media input in short period of time is how they overlap and get all tangled. I know where I stand on some of the below posed questions, but am interested in other people's takes (and may cheerfully argue against them, just as having my ideas challenged is good exercise.)

Some back story, then my ponders.

Yesterday morning, an editor and reporter for a local newspaper was assassinated (or at least murdered) on the street a few blocks from where I live.

This was followed by conversations with neighbors in which I was given funny looks for asserting that, while awful, did not make me feel as insecure as such things such as aggressive pan-handlers.

Today, at work, there was excellent debate with a co-worker about when our government should engage military involvement with other nation's domestic issues. This conversation had the difficulty of my trying to keep it theoretical because, as my sparring partner pointed out, the US rarely gets it right without making things worse. My primary analogy was of a neighbor beating his/her spouse (bad beating, not good beating), which I would see as justifying physical intervention.

This was followed by reading that the Oakland Police did several raids this morning, possibly in response to yesterday's unsubtle hit (article here. The target of these raids were the Black Muslims associated with (and including) Yusef Bey's son, and who are known to have been aggressive and violent towards other Black Muslim's who they feel aren't toeing the religious line.

Are there substantive differences between the abstract stepping in to interfere with the abusive neighbor and Bey's son stepping in to uphold a moral lifestyle theoretically agreed upon within that community?

The big one that I see is that my act would be ostensibly protecting a victim (the spouse) from active assault, while Bey's son is protecting a community from the potential assault presented by the existence of liquor stores. (Bey's son's implied relation to yesterday's murder is not part of this ponder.)

Does the definition of a community boundary make a difference (my interference with my neighbors would justified by their being within a relevant community just as Bey's Son's only acted within the Black Muslim community (as far as I know))?

Now the big step. How does this relate to US foreign policy. Is global community a false concept? Working on the false premise that we could use our bigger than everyone else's stick well and effectively, would US military engagements in foreign territories ever actually be a protective intervention or is it always closer to the cultural dictatorship that I associate with Bey's son?


EDIT/UPDATE: The comment about Bey's son keeping it in the community is now merely exists for the sake of theory, as apparently huge amounts of evidence was found suggesting the groups raided were killing transients and other people who were not found desirable.

Moral math game time!

The biggest problem, or perhaps the most wonderful aspect, of having several thought provoking conversations and media input in short period of time is how they overlap and get all tangled. I know where I stand on some of the below posed questions, but am interested in other people's takes (and may cheerfully argue against them, just as having my ideas challenged is good exercise.)

Some back story, then my ponders.

Yesterday morning, an editor and reporter for a local newspaper was assassinated (or at least murdered) on the street a few blocks from where I live.

This was followed by conversations with neighbors in which I was given funny looks for asserting that, while awful, did not make me feel as insecure as such things such as aggressive pan-handlers.

Today, at work, there was excellent debate with a co-worker about when our government should engage military involvement with other nation's domestic issues. This conversation had the difficulty of my trying to keep it theoretical because, as my sparring partner pointed out, the US rarely gets it right without making things worse. My primary analogy was of a neighbor beating his/her spouse (bad beating, not good beating), which I would see as justifying physical intervention.

This was followed by reading that the Oakland Police did several raids this morning, possibly in response to yesterday's unsubtle hit (article here. The target of these raids were the Black Muslims associated with (and including) Yusef Bey's son, and who are known to have been aggressive and violent towards other Black Muslim's who they feel aren't toeing the religious line.

Are there substantive differences between the abstract stepping in to interfere with the abusive neighbor and Bey's son stepping in to uphold a moral lifestyle theoretically agreed upon within that community?

The big one that I see is that my act would be ostensibly protecting a victim (the spouse) from active assault, while Bey's son is protecting a community from the potential assault presented by the existence of liquor stores. (Bey's son's implied relation to yesterday's murder is not part of this ponder.)

Does the definition of a community boundary make a difference (my interference with my neighbors would justified by their being within a relevant community just as Bey's Son's only acted within the Black Muslim community (as far as I know))?

Now the big step. How does this relate to US foreign policy. Is global community a false concept? Working on the false premise that we could use our bigger than everyone else's stick well and effectively, would US military engagements in foreign territories ever actually be a protective intervention or is it always closer to the cultural dictatorship that I associate with Bey's son?


EDIT/UPDATE: The comment about Bey's son keeping it in the community is now merely exists for the sake of theory, as apparently huge amounts of evidence was found suggesting the groups raided were killing transients and other people who were not found desirable.