A speaker argues that when facing global conflict, we need clear principles for deciding when force is justified and how much to use. The key is acting from your values, not from fear or paranoia, and accepting disagreement without losing your footing.
Chapters
So there is always going to be a regulation of how much force you need to use to prevent something from escalating. At what point are you facing a legitimate threat, and how do you handle it legitimately? And at what point there is some room for criticism that you're just going to have to accept, and some room for disagreement, and some room for activity that you don't particularly care for, that you're just going to have to— Accept. A little bit. It's always going to be a balance. But again, the question is the process. Is there a process to determine what actions represent your values and what message you want to convey versus whether you are simply being reactive, whether you are operating out of fear and paranoia, and whether you're prioritizing only your own immediate self-interest above everyone else's and ignoring other people's concerns and rights?