Oh boy! Israel has again misjudged the issue and caused havoc when compassion and kindness (and ethics) would have been a great deal better. Then there is the small matter of piracy on the high seas – boarding a ship in international water is piracy, pure and simple. This is something that the world condemns the Somali pirates for doing - attacking and boarding ships in international waters (hi-jacking them?) and then escorting them to their own base.
No matter how they justify their actions and however the Israelis “spin” the issue they are no better than the Somali pirates regarding this matter. They deserve to be pilloried.
No one would choose to live as the Palestinians are living in Gaza. No one would naturally choose to do what the Palestinians are doing without (in their eyes) a just cause. Can’t the Israelis see that all the Palestinians want is some recognition and recompense for land unjustly taken from them in 1947? The Palestinians want to get on with their lives in peace – but peace with justice.
From an ethical point of view the Israelis need to ask themselves two questions, “Are we treating the Palestinians the way we would like to be treated?” And secondly, “If everyone did what we are doing would the world be a better place?” If the answer to either question is “No” and I suspect it would be then why, Oh why are they doing it? Can’t they see that violence just begets violence and that the use of force is the last resort of the morally bankrupt?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church is instituting an old/new form of liturgy. It is old because it seems to revert to the ‘old fashioned’ form emphasising sin and redemption and less of the softer tones of forgiveness and mercy but it is new in that it is a change from the immediate past. It appears as if the Church is trying to revert back to the old days and ‘scare’ people into being ‘good’ – the Pope says people need to be ‘woken up’ – whatever that means. The trouble is that reverting back to the ‘old days’ will give the church hierarchy more power and control.
Isn’t it this power and control that got the church into the trouble it’s in now? What with paedophile priests being exposed seemingly everywhere surely they (the hierarchy) should learn from experience and accept that it was the ‘old’ form of the church that gave rise to these abhorrent practices.
Changing the form of the liturgy will not achieve anything. A much deeper and more fundamental change in the hierarchy is needed.
Isn’t it this power and control that got the church into the trouble it’s in now? What with paedophile priests being exposed seemingly everywhere surely they (the hierarchy) should learn from experience and accept that it was the ‘old’ form of the church that gave rise to these abhorrent practices.
Changing the form of the liturgy will not achieve anything. A much deeper and more fundamental change in the hierarchy is needed.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tragedy of the commons
I came across a very interesting phrase the other day – ‘tragedy of the commons’. I had never heard it before but apparently it refers to situations in which people, acting in their individual short term interests, make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.
Referring to Wikipedia, which reads, inter alia: “The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”
Now who doesn’t this statement apply to? Not many I suspect! How many people in influential positions such politicians; many bureaucrats; many investment bankers, quite a few businessmen and many others would have been, or are, involved in situations which could be termed ‘tragedies of the commons’?
This “tragedy of the commons’, could refer to the misuse of the public purse (a ‘common’ in that it belongs to us all) which is a finite resource. It could also refer to trust.
The first of two issues (totally divergent) in the Australian context which immediately spring to mind is the case of the misuse of public funds by the (now former) Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell. He admitted to using public funds (the ‘common’) to finance an affair – for which offence he has been sacked as minister. He misused a ‘common’, exploited it, for his own benefit. For this we all suffer because of the loss of funds (apparently re-paid) and also for the loss of trust that results from this ‘tragedy of the commons’. It raises the question, “What else has happened that we have not been told about?” This is a both a matter of ethics and morals or, as in this case, a lack thereof.
Secondly, in the Australian context, is the even worse situation relating to the postponement (cancellation?) of the much touted Emissions Trading Scheme. I suspect that vested (big business at the ‘top-end’ of town) were behind this tragedy. Australia (and the World) has finite resources in that potable water, good quality soil, creatures in the sea (and the quality of sea water itself) and forested areas (commons) are all at such low levels that any further diminution will seriously affect our quality of life. More of the same, without some concerted action, will cost us all a great deal more at some future date than any current implementation would ever cost.
This is, again, a matter of ethics and morals – or the lack thereof. Vested interests and short term financial and political expediency have resulted in this loss (hopefully only temporarily) of any carbon emissions control. Surely something is better than nothing? No one will ever get the perfect mix of controls, with such a massively complex matter as carbon reduction, at the first attempt. I believe it would be best to implement a reasonably well thought out scheme, acknowledge that it may have failings and leave sufficient ‘wriggle room’ to implement changes as they are seen to be necessary. This is indeed a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and again, we are all likely to suffer and to lose more than we currently contemplate.
Referring to Wikipedia, which reads, inter alia: “The metaphor illustrates the argument that free access and unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately reduces the resource through over-exploitation, temporarily or permanently. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”
Now who doesn’t this statement apply to? Not many I suspect! How many people in influential positions such politicians; many bureaucrats; many investment bankers, quite a few businessmen and many others would have been, or are, involved in situations which could be termed ‘tragedies of the commons’?
This “tragedy of the commons’, could refer to the misuse of the public purse (a ‘common’ in that it belongs to us all) which is a finite resource. It could also refer to trust.
The first of two issues (totally divergent) in the Australian context which immediately spring to mind is the case of the misuse of public funds by the (now former) Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell. He admitted to using public funds (the ‘common’) to finance an affair – for which offence he has been sacked as minister. He misused a ‘common’, exploited it, for his own benefit. For this we all suffer because of the loss of funds (apparently re-paid) and also for the loss of trust that results from this ‘tragedy of the commons’. It raises the question, “What else has happened that we have not been told about?” This is a both a matter of ethics and morals or, as in this case, a lack thereof.
Secondly, in the Australian context, is the even worse situation relating to the postponement (cancellation?) of the much touted Emissions Trading Scheme. I suspect that vested (big business at the ‘top-end’ of town) were behind this tragedy. Australia (and the World) has finite resources in that potable water, good quality soil, creatures in the sea (and the quality of sea water itself) and forested areas (commons) are all at such low levels that any further diminution will seriously affect our quality of life. More of the same, without some concerted action, will cost us all a great deal more at some future date than any current implementation would ever cost.
This is, again, a matter of ethics and morals – or the lack thereof. Vested interests and short term financial and political expediency have resulted in this loss (hopefully only temporarily) of any carbon emissions control. Surely something is better than nothing? No one will ever get the perfect mix of controls, with such a massively complex matter as carbon reduction, at the first attempt. I believe it would be best to implement a reasonably well thought out scheme, acknowledge that it may have failings and leave sufficient ‘wriggle room’ to implement changes as they are seen to be necessary. This is indeed a ‘tragedy of the commons’ and again, we are all likely to suffer and to lose more than we currently contemplate.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Google and Australian censorship
I read in today’s media reports that Senator Stephen Conroy has an issue with Google over what can and cannot be shown over the internet. Apparently he wants Google and other search engine operators to introduce an ‘internet filter’ to limit access to certain sites.
He in reported to have said some of the material available (that he wants to be ‘filtered out’) “includes child sexual abuse material, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, instruction in crime and terrorist acts."
Now, personally, I would never choose to view such material – but that is my choice. If someone else chooses otherwise, even though I might question their moral compass, I respect their choice.
For the Australian Government, in the guise of Senator Conroy, to dictate what can or cannot be accessed on the internet is censorship – pure and simple censorship. This is just the thin edge of a very big wedge. Where will it end - don't want you to view an anti-governmet rally? Or how about reports unfavourable to the incumbent leader? Who decides what can and cannot be viewed and what redress is there?
The irony is that the Australian Government has commented (unfavourably) on the Chinese Government’s attempts to limit the access that Chinese citizens have on the internet using Google. Isn’t this precisely what Senator Conroy is trying to do to the citizen’s of this country??
He can't have it both ways. Talk about ethics!! Think about it.
He in reported to have said some of the material available (that he wants to be ‘filtered out’) “includes child sexual abuse material, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, instruction in crime and terrorist acts."
Now, personally, I would never choose to view such material – but that is my choice. If someone else chooses otherwise, even though I might question their moral compass, I respect their choice.
For the Australian Government, in the guise of Senator Conroy, to dictate what can or cannot be accessed on the internet is censorship – pure and simple censorship. This is just the thin edge of a very big wedge. Where will it end - don't want you to view an anti-governmet rally? Or how about reports unfavourable to the incumbent leader? Who decides what can and cannot be viewed and what redress is there?
The irony is that the Australian Government has commented (unfavourably) on the Chinese Government’s attempts to limit the access that Chinese citizens have on the internet using Google. Isn’t this precisely what Senator Conroy is trying to do to the citizen’s of this country??
He can't have it both ways. Talk about ethics!! Think about it.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Lies, damned lies and statistics!
To me the world has gone too far in requiring everything to be statistically proven before it is accepted as ‘true’. In this regard I would like to make a few general comments about statistics, particularly as applied and used in psychology.
I am studying statistics, via a subject called Research Methods 2, because I did Research Methods 1 and because the Psychology degree I am working towards demands that I should at least understand and be able to use some basic statistics. But I am a sceptic – I use statistics but I don’t really believe in them. You could say that I am an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to statistics. As a (hopefully) future worker in the field I swallow my agnosticism and constantly remind myself that the first responsibility of psychologists and people working in any of the social sciences or humanities is not to statistical accuracy but the well being of mankind - to happiness and health.
But then I need to consider the strong possibility (dare I use the word ‘probability’?) that my ‘agnosticism’ reflects the fact that I just do not enjoy the subject of statistics! I mean statistical reports give the impression of accuracy, of absolute fact, yet in reality there are phrases such as ‘differences may be due to sampling errors’ or ‘this cannot be answered definitively, but it can be evaluated in a statistical way’. This is short-hand for ‘what are the relative likelihoods of the opposing scenarios being important factors?” Or even mind bending statements that go like this: ‘Statistical decision making involves inductive inference. Based on a sample, we draw a conclusion about the population we think it was drawn from’ - if you get my drift! In reality, are statistics that important in the great scheme of things? Some people obviously believe in them but I don’t. Statistics may be useful indicators of something or pointers towards a solution but that is about as far as they (should) go.
While I have commented on this before, some repetition may be worthwhile. Statisticians tell me that it is a statistical probability that, being a male in a certain age group and with certain racial and physical characteristics and with certain religious beliefs, I will have certain likes and dislikes, be of a certain height, be overweight (even obese) and have this or that medical problem and that when presented with an ethical dilemma I will answer in this or that way. But I am not a ‘probability’ – I am a human being.
No doubt it is a great nuisance to statisticians and those who use their figures that mankind is not uniform but compounded of individuals with their own likes and dislikes and their own interpretation of events and situations. Statisticians (and others – politicians and such like) would like humanity to ‘conform’ to some easily defined standard or ‘norm’ but we don’t and pretending that we do is plain wrong – even a waste of time.
It must never be forgotten that the essence of every life is the fulfilment of the potential each is born with. All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.
To me there is a profound social process behind the figures used in the construction and evaluation of ‘scientific’ (read statistical) psychological data and that much of what we are ‘guided’ to do, as a consequence of an uncritical approach to statistics, relies on an ingenuous (mis)use of words that considers ‘facts’ as absolute certainty, as ‘true knowledge’, as ‘objective things’ beyond inference, question or reproach, and when information becomes ‘scientific’ merely because it is arranged and presented in a form that follows the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines, we are in deep trouble.
As to the constant push by many aspects of our society to conform, how about (a repeat)of the wonderful quote from the Indian sage, Krishnamurti, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (from ‘All in the Mind’ by Merlin Donald)
Think about it.
I am studying statistics, via a subject called Research Methods 2, because I did Research Methods 1 and because the Psychology degree I am working towards demands that I should at least understand and be able to use some basic statistics. But I am a sceptic – I use statistics but I don’t really believe in them. You could say that I am an ‘agnostic’ when it comes to statistics. As a (hopefully) future worker in the field I swallow my agnosticism and constantly remind myself that the first responsibility of psychologists and people working in any of the social sciences or humanities is not to statistical accuracy but the well being of mankind - to happiness and health.
But then I need to consider the strong possibility (dare I use the word ‘probability’?) that my ‘agnosticism’ reflects the fact that I just do not enjoy the subject of statistics! I mean statistical reports give the impression of accuracy, of absolute fact, yet in reality there are phrases such as ‘differences may be due to sampling errors’ or ‘this cannot be answered definitively, but it can be evaluated in a statistical way’. This is short-hand for ‘what are the relative likelihoods of the opposing scenarios being important factors?” Or even mind bending statements that go like this: ‘Statistical decision making involves inductive inference. Based on a sample, we draw a conclusion about the population we think it was drawn from’ - if you get my drift! In reality, are statistics that important in the great scheme of things? Some people obviously believe in them but I don’t. Statistics may be useful indicators of something or pointers towards a solution but that is about as far as they (should) go.
While I have commented on this before, some repetition may be worthwhile. Statisticians tell me that it is a statistical probability that, being a male in a certain age group and with certain racial and physical characteristics and with certain religious beliefs, I will have certain likes and dislikes, be of a certain height, be overweight (even obese) and have this or that medical problem and that when presented with an ethical dilemma I will answer in this or that way. But I am not a ‘probability’ – I am a human being.
No doubt it is a great nuisance to statisticians and those who use their figures that mankind is not uniform but compounded of individuals with their own likes and dislikes and their own interpretation of events and situations. Statisticians (and others – politicians and such like) would like humanity to ‘conform’ to some easily defined standard or ‘norm’ but we don’t and pretending that we do is plain wrong – even a waste of time.
It must never be forgotten that the essence of every life is the fulfilment of the potential each is born with. All human life is bound to individuals who manifest it, and it is simply inconceivable without them. But every human is charged with an individual destiny and destination, and the journey to that destination or the fulfilment of that destiny is the only thing that makes sense of life.
To me there is a profound social process behind the figures used in the construction and evaluation of ‘scientific’ (read statistical) psychological data and that much of what we are ‘guided’ to do, as a consequence of an uncritical approach to statistics, relies on an ingenuous (mis)use of words that considers ‘facts’ as absolute certainty, as ‘true knowledge’, as ‘objective things’ beyond inference, question or reproach, and when information becomes ‘scientific’ merely because it is arranged and presented in a form that follows the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines, we are in deep trouble.
As to the constant push by many aspects of our society to conform, how about (a repeat)of the wonderful quote from the Indian sage, Krishnamurti, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” (from ‘All in the Mind’ by Merlin Donald)
Think about it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
What price freedom?
Injustice is just about the most corrosive effect known to man. That and hatred. These combined, as they often are, are a deadly cocktail. Injustice is the effect of hubris – someone, or a group of people thinking (believing) they are better than someone else (or another group) and using this “knowledge” to gain some unfair advantage or to exploit others for personal gain.
But then there is another kind which is more invasive and possibly more general, in that it is beginning to affect many more people. What I am talking about is the apparent injustice of so many rules, regulations and laws introduced to (allegedly) reduce crime and apprehend offenders.
We, as a Society, have got things all mixed up and up-side down. What got me thinking about this are the ‘safety features’ introduced at all ATMs. There are warnings to users to make sure there is no one looking on; to ensure they cover the key-pad with one hand while keying in their PIN and such like. I have nothing against these warnings but who are the people most affected and inconvenienced? We are! Normal people going about their lawful business.
The other side to these warnings are the extra security measures that are invading every aspect of our society. We have CCTV cameras all over the place in our cities (and sometimes in our offices and even, God forbid, in our homes); we are told (if we want our insurance premiums to be kept low) to have window locks; to have burglar proof screens on our windows; deadlocks on our doors; a home alarm system; to have alarms and immobilising devices fitted to our cars. We need personal identification numbers to access everything (or so it seems). Bus and taxi drivers are caged in to prevent attacks from drugged, drunk, angry or otherwise less than charitable passengers. Then think of all the checks that are imposed on us at airports nowadays – they have introduced full body x-ray ‘searches’ to see what (if anything) is hidden under clothing, at some airports. Our bags are inspected at supermarkets and police have the powers to (apparently) stop and search whom-so-ever they please. Again, who are the people most inconvenienced? We are!
Some cities have ‘no go’ areas where ‘normal’ people are discouraged from visiting. Then there are those walled and guarded estates with remote controlled gates and motion activated flood-lights that some of us like to live in.
Who is being inconvenienced? We are! Where is the privacy? Where is the freedom? It is almost as if the ‘good guys’ are in prison, or at least some claim to feel safe only when they are heavily guarded, gated compound, but yet the ‘bad guys’ are out there roaming free!
Something is really wrong here. We have lost that wonderful feeling of being carefree. Yes that is right – being free of care. Where now is the charm of a walk in the city, late on a cold moonlit night, when all is quiet (maybe!) and to see the world, quite literally in a different light – by moonlight, knowing that you may be considered a vagrant and be issued with a ‘move on’ notice? Where now is the pleasure of sleeping with the widows open on a balmy summer’s night and being cooled by the breeze, knowing that there is a possibility you may be burgled? Where now is the pleasure of smiling at a child and having the smile returned, without having the child’s mother look at you suspiciously as a possible paedophile?
I could go on in this vein for a long time but I am sure you get the idea. We are being pushed and pulled and squeezed into a box that is ‘safe’, always under observation, always under guard or being guarded against. How much more of this must we put up with? I am sure it is not doing anything to improve our ‘collective’ mental health – according the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one in five (yes 1 in 5) people will have some sort of mental health issue during their life! That is an astonishing figure but I am not sure what the solution is.
This is the injustice I am talking about.
As I said before I am not sure what the solution is because as the Indian sage Krishnamurti once said, 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'.
But then there is another kind which is more invasive and possibly more general, in that it is beginning to affect many more people. What I am talking about is the apparent injustice of so many rules, regulations and laws introduced to (allegedly) reduce crime and apprehend offenders.
We, as a Society, have got things all mixed up and up-side down. What got me thinking about this are the ‘safety features’ introduced at all ATMs. There are warnings to users to make sure there is no one looking on; to ensure they cover the key-pad with one hand while keying in their PIN and such like. I have nothing against these warnings but who are the people most affected and inconvenienced? We are! Normal people going about their lawful business.
The other side to these warnings are the extra security measures that are invading every aspect of our society. We have CCTV cameras all over the place in our cities (and sometimes in our offices and even, God forbid, in our homes); we are told (if we want our insurance premiums to be kept low) to have window locks; to have burglar proof screens on our windows; deadlocks on our doors; a home alarm system; to have alarms and immobilising devices fitted to our cars. We need personal identification numbers to access everything (or so it seems). Bus and taxi drivers are caged in to prevent attacks from drugged, drunk, angry or otherwise less than charitable passengers. Then think of all the checks that are imposed on us at airports nowadays – they have introduced full body x-ray ‘searches’ to see what (if anything) is hidden under clothing, at some airports. Our bags are inspected at supermarkets and police have the powers to (apparently) stop and search whom-so-ever they please. Again, who are the people most inconvenienced? We are!
Some cities have ‘no go’ areas where ‘normal’ people are discouraged from visiting. Then there are those walled and guarded estates with remote controlled gates and motion activated flood-lights that some of us like to live in.
Who is being inconvenienced? We are! Where is the privacy? Where is the freedom? It is almost as if the ‘good guys’ are in prison, or at least some claim to feel safe only when they are heavily guarded, gated compound, but yet the ‘bad guys’ are out there roaming free!
Something is really wrong here. We have lost that wonderful feeling of being carefree. Yes that is right – being free of care. Where now is the charm of a walk in the city, late on a cold moonlit night, when all is quiet (maybe!) and to see the world, quite literally in a different light – by moonlight, knowing that you may be considered a vagrant and be issued with a ‘move on’ notice? Where now is the pleasure of sleeping with the widows open on a balmy summer’s night and being cooled by the breeze, knowing that there is a possibility you may be burgled? Where now is the pleasure of smiling at a child and having the smile returned, without having the child’s mother look at you suspiciously as a possible paedophile?
I could go on in this vein for a long time but I am sure you get the idea. We are being pushed and pulled and squeezed into a box that is ‘safe’, always under observation, always under guard or being guarded against. How much more of this must we put up with? I am sure it is not doing anything to improve our ‘collective’ mental health – according the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately one in five (yes 1 in 5) people will have some sort of mental health issue during their life! That is an astonishing figure but I am not sure what the solution is.
This is the injustice I am talking about.
As I said before I am not sure what the solution is because as the Indian sage Krishnamurti once said, 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society'.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Israels Moral Army
There was a report the other day about why the Israelis rejected the UN report into their ‘invasion’ of Gaza last year. They are alleged to have said that because Israel has the most ‘moral’ army in the world, what others stated were ‘war crimes’ committed by the Israeli Army could not and would not have happened. They have also stated before that they have the most ‘ethical’ army in the world.
Now one thing I have learned in life is that as soon as anyone starts making presumptuous or sanctimonious statements indicating a belief that they are ‘better’ or as in this case (presumably more) ‘moral’ that anyone else they are inviting Nemeses to cut them back down to size. There is one thing that Nemeses dislikes more than anything else and that is ‘hubris’. I have written about this before and risking accusations of repetition I restate the following:-
“So whole-hearted is the faith in technological idols that it is very hard to discover, in the popular thoughts of our time, any trace of the ancient and profoundly realistic doctrine of Hubris and Nemesis. To the (Ancient) Greeks, Hubris meant any kind of over-weening and excess. When men or societies went too far, either in dominating other men and societies, or in exploiting the resources of nature to their own advantage, this over-weening exhibition of pride had to be paid for. In a word, Hubris invited Nemesis.” (Aldous Huxley - Essay on ‘New Forms of Idolatry’ 1945).
This still rings true today, from its ancient classical, origins. [‘hubris’ … Presumption; insolence (originally towards the Gods); pride; excessive self confidence. ‘Nemesis’ …The Goddess of retribution and vengeance]. Nemesis was perceived to be the personification of the retribution which appears to overtake every wrong. She was conceived as a mysterious power, watching over the propriety of life, shaping the demeanour of men in times of prosperity, punishing crime, taking luck away from the unworthy, tracking every wrong to its doer, and keeping society in equipoise. Nemesis was/is said to be implacable in the pursuit of her cause.
If the Israelis (or the Americans or anyone else for that matter) think for a moment that force of arms on its own solves problems they are sadly mistaken. It never has and it never will. Any force has to be accompanied by magnanimity to the ‘defeated’. I am not sure that the Israelis understand the meaning of the word ‘magnanimity’. They have done nothing to help the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza – in fact they are just keeping up the unequal pressure.
It has to be remembered that only a person can be moral or ethical. Morals and ethics have to do with the interrelationships between human beings. An army, on the other hand, cannot be moral or ethical. An army being an organisation of people who are trained to kill, does not have a life of its own. Ethical conduct can only take place between humans and other sentient beings. The Israeli army may have a code of ethics and instruct its soldiers about moral conduct but under the pressure of war, when it is a case of kill or be killed, anything can and does happen. In any case I am not sure that anyone can be killed in a morally ‘correct’ manner or killed ‘ethically.’
Nothing the Israeli’s have done addresses the original cause of the ‘Palestinian problem’ – injustice; the injustice of having their hereditary land expropriated (without consultation or compensation) to create the State of Israel in 1946. Building a wall dividing Palestine from Israel; having state of the art weaponry does nothing if the original injustice and the sense of injustice is not addressed in a meaningful manner – not just talking about talking. The Israelis will never feel secure while the Palestinians feel deprived, humiliated and treated as second class citizens.
The Israelis (and the Palestinians) must learn, or remember, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. So where does that place the Israeli army or Hamas?
Think about it.
Now one thing I have learned in life is that as soon as anyone starts making presumptuous or sanctimonious statements indicating a belief that they are ‘better’ or as in this case (presumably more) ‘moral’ that anyone else they are inviting Nemeses to cut them back down to size. There is one thing that Nemeses dislikes more than anything else and that is ‘hubris’. I have written about this before and risking accusations of repetition I restate the following:-
“So whole-hearted is the faith in technological idols that it is very hard to discover, in the popular thoughts of our time, any trace of the ancient and profoundly realistic doctrine of Hubris and Nemesis. To the (Ancient) Greeks, Hubris meant any kind of over-weening and excess. When men or societies went too far, either in dominating other men and societies, or in exploiting the resources of nature to their own advantage, this over-weening exhibition of pride had to be paid for. In a word, Hubris invited Nemesis.” (Aldous Huxley - Essay on ‘New Forms of Idolatry’ 1945).
This still rings true today, from its ancient classical, origins. [‘hubris’ … Presumption; insolence (originally towards the Gods); pride; excessive self confidence. ‘Nemesis’ …The Goddess of retribution and vengeance]. Nemesis was perceived to be the personification of the retribution which appears to overtake every wrong. She was conceived as a mysterious power, watching over the propriety of life, shaping the demeanour of men in times of prosperity, punishing crime, taking luck away from the unworthy, tracking every wrong to its doer, and keeping society in equipoise. Nemesis was/is said to be implacable in the pursuit of her cause.
If the Israelis (or the Americans or anyone else for that matter) think for a moment that force of arms on its own solves problems they are sadly mistaken. It never has and it never will. Any force has to be accompanied by magnanimity to the ‘defeated’. I am not sure that the Israelis understand the meaning of the word ‘magnanimity’. They have done nothing to help the unfortunate inhabitants of Gaza – in fact they are just keeping up the unequal pressure.
It has to be remembered that only a person can be moral or ethical. Morals and ethics have to do with the interrelationships between human beings. An army, on the other hand, cannot be moral or ethical. An army being an organisation of people who are trained to kill, does not have a life of its own. Ethical conduct can only take place between humans and other sentient beings. The Israeli army may have a code of ethics and instruct its soldiers about moral conduct but under the pressure of war, when it is a case of kill or be killed, anything can and does happen. In any case I am not sure that anyone can be killed in a morally ‘correct’ manner or killed ‘ethically.’
Nothing the Israeli’s have done addresses the original cause of the ‘Palestinian problem’ – injustice; the injustice of having their hereditary land expropriated (without consultation or compensation) to create the State of Israel in 1946. Building a wall dividing Palestine from Israel; having state of the art weaponry does nothing if the original injustice and the sense of injustice is not addressed in a meaningful manner – not just talking about talking. The Israelis will never feel secure while the Palestinians feel deprived, humiliated and treated as second class citizens.
The Israelis (and the Palestinians) must learn, or remember, that violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. So where does that place the Israeli army or Hamas?
Think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)