Joh and this make it reasonable to decide that people from Russia can not join the marathon.
Beside of the number where would you draw the line? 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99% or 99,999%? Their will always someone who may innocent.
Jen So it's a bit unfair for the runners but it's insignificant compared to what's going on and [...]
Hi Joh and Jen. I think to understand the direction of your argument. You are arguing - and please correct me if my paraphrasing didn't get it, correctly - with expected consequences in mind and evaluate the exclusion of athletes, even if not related to the war except by their nationality, sort of a necessary evil. Sort of "unfair, but worth an expected result"?
While I think it's a perfectly valid ethical perspective, it stirs an uneasy feeling inside me... I'm afraid it's very easy to get on a slippery slope, here. With the danger of justifying more and more actions we'd actually consider unfair by itself, but we accept because someone else is doing (admittedly: far more monstrous) crimes.
So let me put this other perspective next to it. (In Philosophy it might be called a "deontological" one.) Do we really want to commit unfair actions like acting against innocents by ourselves?
When you say
Joh where would you draw the line? 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 99% or 99,999%? Their will always someone who may innocent.
... that argument could also be reversed. Provocatively asked: How many innocents in which professions -- be it athletes excluded, workers kicked out, or civilians on the "wrong side" -- does it take, before it becomes wrong? 15? 1500? 31 Millions?
