Zack Beauchamp

First, one could make non-consequentialist arguments justifying intervention based on the particular moral heinousness of mass slaughter as compared to other lethal ills. I'm not compelled by the underlying moral reasoning here, but I could see how one might be.

Second, one could say it's an argument for more aid AND intervention. That'd be fair enough, except for the fact that states do lots of things to save lives other than aid and intervention that draw from the same finite resource/tax base. So that argument might work depending on the resource constraints at play, but it also might not.

Third, an intervention might be politically possible whereas aid increases might not. Again, that might be true in a given case, but it doesn't answer Hynd's more fundamental moral challenge.

There's a fourth, though, that's more compelling: humanitarian intervention is often necessary to create the conditions under which aid can be effective in saving lives.