11-30-87 Monday. The Arizona Wildcats stunned the basketball world this evening by defeating third-ranked Syracuse [the Orangemen] and winning the Great Alaska Shootout. The Wildcats not only won, but won handily, 80-69. Syracuse was the preseason favorite in at least one poll, in large part because of last [sic; should be “the previous”] year’s strong showing in the NCAA tournament. So now the Wildcats are 4-0, counting the exhibition victory over the Russians. When they beat the Russians, I recall thinking that the team was solid. Then came the annihilation of Duquesne [the Dukes]. At this point I wasn’t sure whether we were very good or Duquesne was very bad. After beating Michigan [the Wolverines], I was sure we were very good. Now, after beating Michigan and Syracuse in three days, there’s no question about it. This team is formidable. The scoring attack, led by Sean Elliott, Steve Kerr, Craig McMillan, Anthony Cook, and Tom Tolbert, is balanced; the defense is solid; and the three-point and free-throw shooting is good. Wow. It’s going to be a great fall and winter in the Old Pueblo. The Wildcats should be ranked in the top ten this week. [The Wildcats made it to the Final Four of the NCAA Tournament, losing to the Oklahoma Sooners in the semifinals. Sean Elliott played 12 seasons in the National Basketball Association. Steve Kerr played 15 seasons. Anthony Cook played four seasons. Tom Tolbert played seven seasons.]

. . . 

The topic of discussion in this evening’s [Introduction to Philosophy] class was warfare. Specifically, we read and discussed Thomas Nagel’s “War and Massacre”. As expected, the students found it interesting, though, like me, a bit odd. We’re not used to applying moral principles to things like warfare and massacre. But Nagel is right; there’s no reason why moral principles cannot and should not be applied to all forms of human behavior. We’re moral agents. We’re responsible for what we do and should develop principles of thought and action to guide us. Nagel’s particular claim is that hostility is an interpersonal relation, and, like all interpersonal relations, is governed by certain rules. For instance, hostility must be directed at its proper target, not at innocent persons. This immediately constrains war participants, for it precludes [sic; should be “prevents”] them from killing noncombatants. Nagel also argues that there are constraints on the types of warfare in which one can engage. All in all, it was a fascinating topic. Perhaps some day I’ll delve further into the literature. As I pointed out to the students, there’s a growing and sophisticated body of work on the ethics of warfare and the logic of nuclear deterrence. [Since 26 May 2004 (a period of three and a half years), I’ve operated a blog (weblog) entitled “The Ethics of War.”]