I am confident that my view of the world has evolved into a more complex analysis. While I may have entered the classroom a liberal and am definitely leaving a liberal, the justification of my ideas has changed. I believe that I once studied issues as they presented themselves individually, and would seek answers that provided a simplified and reassuring quick-fix.
Well, I have tried very hard to distance myself from that type of thinking. I now analyse an issue according to philosophy and history, while creating points-of-view that can hold up against an intellectual dissection. While I learned philosophical theories in another class, it is the application to an argument that I developed in World Issues.
It certainly hasn't been easy. It becomes difficult to apply moral absolutes to certain scenarios, such as the humanitarian air-strikes in Libya. Here I was torn between the sin of killing and the duty of providing aid. I am still torn, but I don't mind saying that this is just one of many issues I simply am not ready to answer yet.
In terms of history, it becomes helped most with long-standing conflicts. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict remains the best example. Through an understanding of history, I was able to strengthen my ideas through the testimonies and ideas of the past. I was able to talk of the conflicts origin with Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael, and the events since. Very helpful were also history books I read for leisure, such as one detailing Clinton's presidency and his attempts at structuring peace.
The last point is perhaps the most important. The course was interesting to the point that the arguments I formed left me curious enough to research it on my own. I've read many books this year on the topics we have discussed, and have benefited from them greatly. While political books have always been an interest of mine, I just finished a book on economics, a subject that interested me less, because I had several unanswered questions left from our class discussions. As I suspected, liberalism is the more intellectual and ethical theory, but it is getting there that provides the best debate. The class provided an inspiration environment that enabled be to learn beyond the requirement, and this has prepared me well for university.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
A Defining Theme
In World Issues, the most interesting and intellectual discussion we have is through the analysis of an event. We debate the intentions of those responsible, the likely reaction, and the correct reaction. The third requires more debate the the former two, and it is through this that we find the year's theme. It is, quite simply, trying to find the correct answer.
To even begin trying to do so, it is a personal requirement that we reject moral relativism and moral pluralism. These confuse us into accepting several truths, the result being that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the good and bad. In the end, we simply stop trying. Being a moral absolutist means that you believe there is a definite good, despite the fact that we're not always able to find it.
This year, the more ambitious subjects that we have studied include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Arab Spring, and Canadian politics. With each, I always tried to define what the correct answer was, regardless of what the best political decision. For the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it is not politically popular to defend Palestine against vitriolic attacks. It is morally correct though, as treating them as equals is the simplest foundation for eventual peace. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter shared this view, and they came closer to establishing an end to the conflict that any other Western politician. Among people who believe in moral absolutes, there is often the belief that the answer is inalienably obvious. A lack of debate is justified by an attitude of certitude, arguments remain simple, and facts are ignored. Examples in politics of this is George Bush or Stephen Harper, both of whom took staunchly pro-Israel policies because they believed it was correct. They did not analyse the position that perhaps the best thing Israel could do is assure its safety. This requires someone to treat the Palestinians as equals, which they are. Religion defines the spirit, not the body. As human beings, there is no moral justification for treating another being as less worthy that ourselves.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict was an example of an issue where the theme was applied, but the theme continues to be applied to any issue I discuss because, through practice, it is an instinct of debate. It has affected my thinking because I now try to frame issues into a more complex mindset. Issues now begin to transcend the actual argument and instead form a cohesion between similar moral stances and decisions. While it is more difficult and stressful to form arguments with these standards, it makes for a far more accurate, intellectual, and moral opinion.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
A reaction to bin Laden
When President Obama gave the order for the Seal team to infiltrate bin Laden's compound, there was a directive for him not to be taken alive. The mission was successful, and we are rightfully relieved that he has been found. However, there are three main discussions that have resulted.
First is the question as to whether bin Laden should have been killed. My opinion is no. America believes that it adheres to higher moral standards, and this should be demonstrated through a repudiation of execution and violence. Bin Laden could have been captured. While it would have required a more delicate extraction, it could have been accomplished. The result would have seen a terrorist and mass-murdered stand public trial. It would have sent shock-waves through the extremist community about the values of the West. For the rest of the world, it would have contributed to restoring the American reputation dismantled by George Bush. The Israelis did not kill Adolf Eichmann, a man responsible for the death of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Instead, he was given a trial and was held accountable for his crimes against humanity and morality. America should have done the same for bin Laden.
Second, there has been the discussion as to whether torture helped in finding bin Laden. This is absurd. Putting aside the moral argument that torture is unethical, we should stress that it also doesn't work. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and revealed no relevant information. In fact, he gave falsified information that set the Americans in the wrong directions. John McCain, a Republican, argues that torture is ineffective. Seeing as he was tortured during the Vietnam War, it doesn't seem too intelligent to dispute him on the fact. Leon Panetta, the CIA Chief, reported that the information to find bin Laden (the parts found before Obama took office) could have possibly been found by another method. In the end, we have a policy that undermines our reputation and alienates the informers that are vital to retrieving information. Torture simply isn't the most effective method, and this is all without mentioning that it is morally abhorrent and reduces us to a lower ethical standard.
First is the question as to whether bin Laden should have been killed. My opinion is no. America believes that it adheres to higher moral standards, and this should be demonstrated through a repudiation of execution and violence. Bin Laden could have been captured. While it would have required a more delicate extraction, it could have been accomplished. The result would have seen a terrorist and mass-murdered stand public trial. It would have sent shock-waves through the extremist community about the values of the West. For the rest of the world, it would have contributed to restoring the American reputation dismantled by George Bush. The Israelis did not kill Adolf Eichmann, a man responsible for the death of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Instead, he was given a trial and was held accountable for his crimes against humanity and morality. America should have done the same for bin Laden.
Second, there has been the discussion as to whether torture helped in finding bin Laden. This is absurd. Putting aside the moral argument that torture is unethical, we should stress that it also doesn't work. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and revealed no relevant information. In fact, he gave falsified information that set the Americans in the wrong directions. John McCain, a Republican, argues that torture is ineffective. Seeing as he was tortured during the Vietnam War, it doesn't seem too intelligent to dispute him on the fact. Leon Panetta, the CIA Chief, reported that the information to find bin Laden (the parts found before Obama took office) could have possibly been found by another method. In the end, we have a policy that undermines our reputation and alienates the informers that are vital to retrieving information. Torture simply isn't the most effective method, and this is all without mentioning that it is morally abhorrent and reduces us to a lower ethical standard.
The last and least philosophical is whether it was legal to conduct this operation in Pakistan, as it breached sovereignty. While conducting a military operation in a sovereign country can be considered an act of war, or at least an act of aggression, we should not expect the Pakistani government to respond harshly. Al Qeada was denounced by the Pakistani government as a terrorist group, and it has since received nearly $20 billion from the Americans to help eradicate the members of the terrorist group still within its borders. It will miss the money more that anything else, as well as the pretense that it sided with the Americans. This argument will be hard to justify now, an argument supported by Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar of the Clinton administration. However, while the trust relationship has been damaged, we should not expect Obama to declare war. It is a reminder that our allies in the region are at best untrustworthy, and that we should consider removing all troops that are still fighting, leaving only those serving to train the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Arab Spring
The Arab Spring has seen widespread oppression be relieved of its oppressors- both physically and metaphysically. While a deposed leader serves to showcase the former, the change in philosophy in the Middle East defines the latter. Leaders have been deposed before and have been replaced by a progressively similar one, simple for the reason that philosophy did not evolve as the same speed. This time, I have hope that democracy will finally emerge. The philosophies of the oppressed have changed to one of increased self-respect and personal freedom. They have learned of the extent of freedom that humanity accords a valued individual, and rightfully gained the courage to demand it for themselves.
These revolts were effective because it adhered to peaceful principles. With the exception of Libya, these demonstrations have rejected violence despite systematic executions. The Syrian government kills dozens a week, and yet the people refuse to abandon the principles they seek to administrate once they gain power. To maintain order in the long-term, they must continue to adhere to the principles they demonstrated during the revolts, but also a few other governmental necessities. First, they must clearly define the separation of Church and State. Mixing the two demeans both religion and government and forces each to abandon its principles. Worse, governmental leaders begin to manipulate the text to support their immoral actions. These new governments must end the practice of using religion as political leverage, as they will find that it serves only to divide and allow an ignorance disguised as righteousness. Second, they must establish a legal system that will transcend the present generation. At best, the present generation of revolutionaries will maintain their principles through the legal system, but these will erode with time if guidelines are not established to ensure that they will continue in the future. Third, a functional economy must take root. They have rejected a powerful dictatorial government that exploits the general population, and thus they must reject its economic equivalent. Their economies are stagnant largely because of corruption and inefficiency, and corporate exploitation holds both of these in great amount. A population that believes that it lacks power will be most productive in an economy that does not follow a pure capitalist system. Large efforts must be made to establish a strong small-business sector, one that is given enough governmental support to be powerful and escape poverty through their development. Large businesses, such a factories and organizations, must take advantage of the population's mindset. They have removed the chains that confined them, and this psychological disposition is best suited for research, innovation, and education. Among powerful businesses, a decentralization of their power must occur to both increase wages and decrease the prices. This will likely require government intervention, as old-fashioned powerful businessmen will not decentralize power without a fight. Regardless, decentralization is the key. To each man an increased share of the pie, as too few have been eating the majority for far too long. Once they are successful in doing this, they must help us do the same.
Japan's Earthquake
The earthquake in Japan brought tragedy to millions of families, and a sense of humanitarian responsibility to the rest of us. It allowed all of us to contemplate the impermanence of human existence, all the while being thankful for the blessings in our lives.
In the days that followed, it also allowed for reflection on the mistakes and virtues of our preventive actions and our response afterwards. Of them all, nuclear energy has been the most passionately discussed. The failure to stabilize several nuclear reactors reduced the confidence of our ability to control nuclear energy, and perhaps rightfully so. After all, a nuclear disaster would bring catastrophic calamities that would eclipse the earthquake. Some have suggested that we simply stop building these reactors on any fault lines and shorelines. While being out of water's reach would have prevented the Japanese nuclear crisis, Chernobyl demonstrated that man also holds the potential to cause a meltdown and cause widespread radiation.
The discussion to force a replacement seems in place. While many Americans have taken this discussion to reintroduce the need for increased oil and coal production, we should instead be concentrating our efforts on renewable energy sources. We each have our preference as to which should be most prominently used, they are all varyingly inefficient. This should spur our enthusiasm, rather than diminish it. For improvements to materialize, we need to conduct research. An easy first step would be the annulment of the $2 billion tax-breaks that we give to Canadian oil companies. After all, they made $8.4 billion in profit last year. Let's stop pretending that their financial security is dependent on our willingness to pay them.
We must learn from every tragedy, and this could be one of the many lessons that were meant to change us.
In the days that followed, it also allowed for reflection on the mistakes and virtues of our preventive actions and our response afterwards. Of them all, nuclear energy has been the most passionately discussed. The failure to stabilize several nuclear reactors reduced the confidence of our ability to control nuclear energy, and perhaps rightfully so. After all, a nuclear disaster would bring catastrophic calamities that would eclipse the earthquake. Some have suggested that we simply stop building these reactors on any fault lines and shorelines. While being out of water's reach would have prevented the Japanese nuclear crisis, Chernobyl demonstrated that man also holds the potential to cause a meltdown and cause widespread radiation.
The discussion to force a replacement seems in place. While many Americans have taken this discussion to reintroduce the need for increased oil and coal production, we should instead be concentrating our efforts on renewable energy sources. We each have our preference as to which should be most prominently used, they are all varyingly inefficient. This should spur our enthusiasm, rather than diminish it. For improvements to materialize, we need to conduct research. An easy first step would be the annulment of the $2 billion tax-breaks that we give to Canadian oil companies. After all, they made $8.4 billion in profit last year. Let's stop pretending that their financial security is dependent on our willingness to pay them.
We must learn from every tragedy, and this could be one of the many lessons that were meant to change us.
China's Future in the World
Chinese Communism is inauthentic. It uses Communism only when it allows the state to maintain its oppressive control of the people. It is done through the manipulation of the legal system, a perversion of the moral system, and the suppression of the information system. Economically, there exists a Capitalism far more corrupt and limitless that we find in the Western world. Businessmen are allowed to exploit their workers and consumers providing that they do not cause the government any inconvenience. China reacts aggressively to any peaceful demonstrations in Tibet and Taiwan, and yet it pales to the treatment of its own dissenters. In the end, it creates massive inequality between the rich and the poor, as well as the powerful from the powerless.
It is a reoccurring historical theme that great inequality cannot be sustained in the long-term. The exploited always become progressively harder to oppress, and methods to control them will further spur protests if political and economic changes are not brought quickly enough. While we could look at the Arab Spring as a modern example, the American, French, and Russian Revolutions serve the same purpose. China has great economic potential that remains tragically underdeveloped because of its belief that an exploited workforce yields the most profit. They must shed this viewpoint, not only because it is immoral, but because it is unsustainable. If it wishes to become a superpower of American comparison, it must plan for the future. If China doesn't adapt its political and economic standards, its progress will stagnate once the people do so no longer.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The CARE model
CARE, an acronym meaning (Compassion, Action, Responsibility, and Equality). I'm sure that most follow this model without realizing it, as our society places great emphasis on following a high moral standard. With the four however, we should be able to rank them to determine which should gain the most emphasis.
1) Equality
When you have equality, the rest will follow. If a society is composed of faiths and cultures treated equally, we will realize the necessity of tolerating others and with it begin to see others with a greater degree of humanity. If we look at the examples of racism in America, it was not caused because of a genetic mutation, nor was it caused because they were unable to treat other cultures with humanity. They were able, they chose not to. A great portion of racism ended in 1865 because African Americans were given the same legal rights as American Caucasians. A lot more left in 1964 when they were made socially equal. We all have the capacity to be compassionate, but unless all people are recognized as equals, this will never occur.
2) Compassion is next because it is the result of equality and allows for the other two to occur. Compassion is the development of a higher moral authority that allows us to act well and responsibly. Compassion occurs only when we see others with a degree of humanity equal to ourselves, and as such the justification for equality is presented. With compassion, we can now determine how to act.
3) Action
When we have compassion, we can now act accordingly. In doing so, we create a new norm. Past methods of discrimination and disrespect are replaced by actions demonstrating compassion and tolerance. Every generation must renew their pledge to respect others, something which is done through the examples of older generation, the legal limits presented by the government, and the moral limits determined by a force greater than ourselves.
4) Responsibility
Once we have acted in a moral fashion, only now does responsibility occur. Once the incentive to act morally has occured and society starts to do so, responsibility will ensure that it continues. Rather than simply being an action to occur just for one day, society will instead pressure others to act in an moral fashion. Society has great influential pressure. If society believes an immoral action or thought to be justified, there are no limitations to the catastrophes that can follow. If it instead can forced to inspire others to act in moral fashion, there are no limitations to the extent of how moral and just we can be.
1) Equality
When you have equality, the rest will follow. If a society is composed of faiths and cultures treated equally, we will realize the necessity of tolerating others and with it begin to see others with a greater degree of humanity. If we look at the examples of racism in America, it was not caused because of a genetic mutation, nor was it caused because they were unable to treat other cultures with humanity. They were able, they chose not to. A great portion of racism ended in 1865 because African Americans were given the same legal rights as American Caucasians. A lot more left in 1964 when they were made socially equal. We all have the capacity to be compassionate, but unless all people are recognized as equals, this will never occur.
2) Compassion is next because it is the result of equality and allows for the other two to occur. Compassion is the development of a higher moral authority that allows us to act well and responsibly. Compassion occurs only when we see others with a degree of humanity equal to ourselves, and as such the justification for equality is presented. With compassion, we can now determine how to act.
3) Action
When we have compassion, we can now act accordingly. In doing so, we create a new norm. Past methods of discrimination and disrespect are replaced by actions demonstrating compassion and tolerance. Every generation must renew their pledge to respect others, something which is done through the examples of older generation, the legal limits presented by the government, and the moral limits determined by a force greater than ourselves.
4) Responsibility
Once we have acted in a moral fashion, only now does responsibility occur. Once the incentive to act morally has occured and society starts to do so, responsibility will ensure that it continues. Rather than simply being an action to occur just for one day, society will instead pressure others to act in an moral fashion. Society has great influential pressure. If society believes an immoral action or thought to be justified, there are no limitations to the catastrophes that can follow. If it instead can forced to inspire others to act in moral fashion, there are no limitations to the extent of how moral and just we can be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)