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.