Update 01-01-principles-apologia.md

01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the repu
         - A nation with the enhanced capabilities and technology to **feasibly** achieve its self-defense while limiting civilian casualties has an ethical obligation to employ those technologies in the manner which does in fact, limit those civilian casualties which its capabilities enable it to limit.
            - Ayn Rand and Peikoff themselves use this very same reasoning when pointing out that humankind's morality consists of humans living **as humans** (i.e, rational creatures) with a holistic view of the human identity -- that a human has two hands to labour and fight with; but a human also has a rational faculty which enables him/her to observe and scientifically learn about the world, and to use that knowledge to produce with his/her hands instead of using violence, and to trade the produce of their labour with others instead of predating on others -- that a human is a being with **both** two hands **and** a mind. The enhanced capabilities granted by the mind bind the human with new moral and ethical obligations. With increased capability comes increased ethical obligation.
         - A nation with the foresight/knowledge that a particular course of action in war would cause avoidable civilian death, and which has an alternative course of action which would **feasibly** achieve its self defense objectives, has an obligation to choose the course of action which would avoid incurring those avoidable civilian casualties.
-        - A nation receiving information which changes the ethical implications of a course of action in an avoidable way, has a moral obligation to alter that course of action and avoid the negative ethical consequences if it can do so while still feasibly accomplishing its self-defense.
+        - A nation receiving information which changes the ethical implications of a course of action in a negative way, where those negative consequences can be **avoided**, has a moral obligation to alter that course of action and avoid the negative ethical consequences if it can do so while still **feasibly** accomplishing its self-defense.
      - It is certainly immoral for a nation to paralyze itself with inaction in the face of a threat, but a nation which, due to its advantage in capabilities/foresight/information, has a course of action which enables it to entinguish a threat and defend itself while also limiting civilian casualties is ethically bound limit such casualties where it is truly feasible to do so.
 
 - Antonin Scalia: