Justifying inaction over mass crimes

Professor Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon is proposing that some kind of formal process be instituted whereby nations would be required 'to carefully weigh and publicly justify action or inaction in cases of intentional mass murder'. There's not enough detail in the item reporting this to be able to tell much about the shape of the proposal. Which nations? All or only some? Via the UN or outside it? I think the idea has more going for it than the argument that is offered in its support. This is, in summary, that moral intuition doesn't suffice to motivate people to do something about large-scale atrocity. It takes moral reasoning as well. I don't mean to disparage the importance of moral reasoning - not at all. But just as intuition can mislead us or be numbed, so reasoning can smooth the path towards conclusions we prefer to reach and away from conclusions we find inconvenient. It's not as if the moral reasoning that Slovic's proposal would make mandatory would be the disembodied reasoning of some 'moral mind'. Those reasoning would be doing so on behalf of states, and it's a sure bet that the interests of the states concerned would never be far from their thoughts.

Even so, the idea has its merits. If the world's leaders, or their representatives, were obliged in the face of any case of ongoing mass murder to foregather and state formally why they thought action was justified or - as might be more likely - not justified, it would both put them on their mettle and create a clear and immediate public record for general judgement. When they do nothing or next to nothing, let them have to say clearly why.