Author: deano

One analogy that I have often heard is that different ideologies can be viewed as lenses, ways of viewing the world. One can pick up their capitalist libertarian lens and take a look at society. Through this lens one can be generally highly appreciative of the freedom one has in America but can be critical of laws which prohibit certain freedoms such as the use of particular drugs or certain large budget government programs. Through a Marxist lens, one can view society as a system of control in which a few wealthy individuals rule over the masses. One would be critical of large corporations in which the majority of the profits go to the few and which the majority of the people work long hours for much less pay.

When I think of all these different theories and making a moral judgment, I pretend the moral judgment is a blinding light and then think of which shade of glasses is appropriate to wear for the given situation. I select my shade to wear by trying on a variety of sunglasses and sometimes decide on a blend of certain pairs or perhaps even inventing a new pair.

More!

For example, the issue of abortion and abortion rights I think is a puzzling issue for many, myself included. When making a moral judgment on this issue one may be confused about conflicting moral principles.  One common lens surrounds the idea that abortion is a form of murder. This lens emphasizes both that it is immoral to kill, whether it’s a life or a potential person. Another lens is the civil rights lens which people make different cases for. Some look at Roe v. Wade and view abortion as a privacy issue whereas others view that the fetus is a life and therefore deserves rights. Lastly, there is the utilitarian lens which views the situation as making abortion legal alleviates the amount of suffering that would be caused by women who would resort to alternative means to have abortion if it were outlawed. Furthermore the utilitarian perspective would look at the amount of suffering that would be inflicted upon a fully developed person versus a pre-nervous system fetus. When considering all these different lenses, then perhaps it is appropriate to select the right pair of sunglasses to wear.

I thought Booman wrote an interesting diary titled “Reflections on Being Wrong and Right”.  Booman started the post by mentioning:

I think there is an impulse in almost everyone to believe that the world’s problems would be over if only everyone would adopt their philosophy, or world view. It’s most prominent in college students, and seems to ebb over time.

He summarized his diary in a comment where he wrote:

My whole point here is that it is better to have a world where different ends are pursued than one in which all ends are agreed upon.

He mentioned how he disagreed with Kant’s categorical imperative which states “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Which lead me to a few thoughts…

What I appreciate about various perspectives is their ability to provide us with different lenses, a broader pool to select from. Furthermore, people wearing their own sunglasses make cases for what is good about their sunglasses, what is of value. However, after reading the diary I felt there was something missing.

While I agree with the ying-yang nature of various lenses I think these lenses should be put in context with responsibility.  I agree with the sentiment that people are responsible for their own actions and not those of others, but I think it is safe to say that we know that our actions have the potential to influence and often do. I don’t believe that personal responsibility is as simplistic as say Sartre has argued, and I am not, of course, some great judge on this matter but I think an example illustrate this idea.

Granted children are not fully self-aware, cognitively developed beings but surely teachers don’t stand up before classes and swear at young children who did a sloppy job on their homework. While the teacher may not be responsible for the subsequent actions of the children, the teacher probably has the prudence to understand his or her likely influence. Perhaps I don’t endorse Kant’s categorical imperative but I don’t think it follows that the opposite is necessarily true.

Lastly, I would like to briefly address the idea of people believing that if their ideology was adopted the world’s problems would be resolved. One point that I find important is that our ideas are in a specific historical context which is in flux. This implies that those of us who are critical of certain policies and advocate for change aren’t necessarily tied to these ideas for all of eternity. For example, if a person advocates for universal health care, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this person is tied to support a new system forever if it fails or needs tweaking; one can advocate for change and then be open to criticism and other ideas down the line.

As Booman mentioned that these universal ideological opinions are often held by college students, I confess that I am younger than your average blogger. Perhaps my belief that there is value in these lenses insofar as they help us make better sunglasses but not necessarily in the actions of those whose espouse them is naïve, but that’s why I’m here, to learn from you guys.

Ok, another ranting diary about some idea I think is important, but this is probably just pushing some better “scoop story” off of the list.

One difference I have noticed between myself and friends of mine on the wrong side of the political spectrum is that I have heard policies justified in terms of its importance in regards to tradition.

I believe that tradition alone is not enough to justify anything.

At first glance, I can understand how someone might read this and think this is some sort of attack on tradition, but that is not my intention at all. All I mean is that if someone is going to invoke something’s importance there must be a clear reason aside from the sole fact that it is a tradition.

There are many traditions I partake in. As a non-believer, I celebrate Christmas each year. I enjoy the tradition of getting together with friends and family and playing some ridiculously cheesy music, it’s effin great. But, those reasons I have for enjoying the holiday are exactly why I enjoy the tradition.

Just as it would be absurd to justify slavery as a form of tradition, arguments against marriage of peoples of certain sexual orientation ring a similar tone. I’m sure we all see bummer stickers explaining that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no logic in these arguments, but a will to preserve some false image of history in the “good old days” where homosexuality didn’t exist (no, most people have not studied Ancient Greece).

In the end, I have no problem with many traditions, but I could explain to you why each one of those had some value. If tradition is ever to be invoked as a justification, it follows that a second justification is necessary.

Cross-posted at the very orange Daily Kos.

The nature of evil is a topic which has been investigated by many thinkers far brighter than myself throughout time; Nietzsche has outlined in The Genealogy of Morals how he believed the term arrived. I am not presenting an answer, but more of an inquiry.

What I am interested in here is the idea of intent versus outcome. Whether there is really a time when labeling someone or something as evil is actually appropriate. It seems to me that often times the term evil is thrown around and it is assumed that this means that the intent of the person who is called evil is actually the case. Is George Bush’s opposition to funding abortion rights and contraception education programs a moral decision, or is it evil because it leads to unnecessary suffering? Is George Bush evil?

Please Turn to Page B4, Column 3

Continued From Page B1

In arriving to answer such a question I thought of Gregory Macguire’s revisionist fiction book Wicked.  Macguire tells a tale about how a little girl named Elphaba arrives at growing up and being called the Wicked Witch of the West. One of the passages I found most interesting from the novel was:

I thought that this was an eloquent way of explaining the tragedy of snap moral judgments. To declare something as evil and not to question the cause of its evilness is ultimately the approach to maintain the status quo, which is to say, to accept the evil and not to try and understand a way to prevent “evil” in the future or reduce or eliminate current “evil”.

This thinking and questioning seems quite relevant to some of the comments made by Machiavelli, I mean, Karl Rove:

Now Rove’s words are “offer understanding”, which has the connotation of empathy and misses the point. His sentence may have been accurate if he said “Rational people who saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks were horrified and wanted to find out how to prevent America from further attacks.”

If the term evil is going to be used at all it should be a living label and one that is used along with an inquiry of the intent of the person or action. It seems fair to label the perpetrators of the atrocities of September 11th as “evil”, but this doesn’t seem to get me far into understanding the motivations of their actions and how to avoid fueling animosity. In fact often times the word is used precisely to thwart inquiry and to appeal to associations. This is the opposite of inquiring the intention of a particular actor.  

Understanding the intent of “evil” actors can be an extremely difficult task. For me the most interesting aspect is the transition from love to hate, from “good intentions” to outright brutality; and in many cases it seems to me that brutality is justified in moral terms.

The former interest can be exemplified by simply watching the Star Wars movies. In these movies there are various factors that lead the most talented Jedi to be one of the most infamous villains, Darth Vader; however, it seems clear to me that to just call Darth Vader evil would really do injustice to the entire transition Anakin made. It would also fail to address how Anakin’s love for Padame was in fact the drive that ultimately caused Anakin to turn to the darkside.

This sort of inquiry into the origins of evil and intent can also be addressed with regards to the Rush Limbagh t-shirts mocking the concerns that many Americans and Human Rights groups have for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. These shirts appall me; however, I understand that tolerance for this hypocrisy and brutality in the eyes of Limbaugh fans is in a sense a perverted, distorted love for their country. Although I personally don’t think this is love for America, actually quite the opposite, I think this is an example of how repugnant behavior becomes justified (in their view). It becomes uniquely justified when it is in the context of being a victim.

When one is a victim often times it seems that any act can be justified in relation to this.

Thomas Friedman in From Beirut to Jerusalem writes of an conversation he had with an Israeli Air Force Colonel (I know I am asking you to read something by Friedman, but bear with me). The Colonel commented to Friedman’s question of what he would say if he could address the Israeli people in a speech:

I didn’t intend to steer this into the Middle East, but it isn’t difficult see how victimization plays out in many of the conflicts. In Israel and Palestine there are groups within each population who justify brutality towards the other as a result of being a victim, whether it is resisting occupation or maintaining security. Furthermore, in Iraq, we see an occupying country justifying a war in part as a War on Terror and a resistance justifying suicide bombings as being a victim of occupation. Clearly I am not saying I agree with the rationality of each case of victimization but the justification is still used.

I really believe that we are all victims in society and that many nations can make a good case of being victimized, but I think that this can cloud rationality and moral decisions. I find The Wicked Witch of the West’s notion that it is the nature of evil to remain secret as a good starting place for any analysis on the subject.

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Yesterday was my birthday, and it made me think of a lot of things. Since we’re in the political realm I’ll just share with you guys what I think is relevant. One of the things I have noticed over the years is how birthdays at one point in my life used to entail this feeling of complete unbridled joy. I remember waking up and just feeling the excitement of having a day in which each person I was close with dedicated a certain portion of their time just to celebrate me. Year after year this feeling seems to fade away, and is replaced by wanting to be around friends and family but not feeling the need for the attention and self-centered nature that the birthday originally entailed, but the nostalgia remains. So yesterday when I woke up and was officially twenty-four, I thought to myself, that this was supposed to be a special day, a day just for myself and a day where this is socially acceptable.
When I woke up and was reading the newspaper I found this hard! I don’t know how else to say it, but I think we live in pretty fucked up times. We have two wars going on, which are totally out of discussion in our media, at least what’s really going on. We have an administration that doesn’t care about its own people (unless you are a white Christian, I kid); why should I be celebrating my birthday on such a day? How can I just forget about all of what is going on and just be apathetic for a day and ignore the world? This takes effort. It takes effort to pretend that I am not apart of this world and that what is happening does not affect me. But I managed to pull it off. I managed to have a great time with my friends and family. What I really wonder is how Republicans can make an ideology out of this. Republicans live like everyday is their birthday.

Update [2005-6-19 20:26:26 by deano]: This diary was meant to act as a bridge between various perspectives. I don’t necessarily fully endorse each perspective but felt it was appropriate to approach the issue in an encompassing manner.

This diary was originally posted at the Daily Kos but has been edited since.

Since I have been writing on the Daily Kos I have noticed that there are certain issues that just are bound to divide people more than any others. Whenever Israel or Palestine comes up this certainly seems to be the case. While many times I hesitate to even get involved, I think it is important to point out the ambiguity of issue and at least attempt to complicate the issue from black and white perspectives that assign moral responsibility to only one side and hopefully provide a progressive prospective that strives to be free from cognitive dissonance.

In establishing a progressive prospective on how to frame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict we must address a) what are the values of progressives and b) how should we apply these to this unfortunate conflict. I believe progressives need to have coherent message to tell our leadership and the rest of the country and why not do it here, internally, on the Booman Tribune.

(much more..)

Establishing values amongst thinking individuals is not an easy task. I have come up with a laundry list of values that I think are commonly shared which would apply to this issue and then addressed their relevance to the topic.

Democracy & Self-Determination: Despite our leaders constant rhetoric about liberty and democracy, I believe these principles are essential to our perspective. Colombia historian, Richard Hofstadter wrote in The Age of Reform about the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century:

A key component to any democracy is the idea of civil rights or more broadly the rights of the individual.  When we look at Israel and Palestine we notice that there are many elements of democracy as well as deficits in this arena.

In Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel he comments:

While I tend to be critical of Israel’s democratic deficit, I think it is important to remember to look at the forest, there are many applaudable aspects of the society, and not only the trees, however many there are.  For further reading on this, there is the CIA fact book on Israel which discusses Israel’s parliament, the Knesset and other related topics.

There are other voices on the subject of Israel and democracy.   Michel Warschawski, an anti-Zionist professor, has dissenting views on Israeli
Democracy:

Gideon Levy, of Haaretz, is also critical of the concept of Israeli Democracy :

Democracy under the Palestinian Authority is clearly underdeveloped. In a recent letter to President Bush, Human Rights watch wrote :

While Israel has many democratic aspects that neighboring countries lack, I believe it is a progressive position to extend rights and promote equality within Israel proper and evacuate settlers from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; as well as obviously supporting Palestinian national self-determination. Furthermore, I agree that the Palestinian Authority needs to be concerned with the comments expressed by the Human Rights Watch.

International Law and Human Rights: I don’t even know if I need to say anymore. Most progressives seem to advocate that countries should all respect international law. There have been many articles about the outrage over the use of torture, etc. However, it is true that people are going to disagree about specifics of international law, such as UN Resolution 242, and what this means.  Historically many countries have tried to shape law around their policies, as we see America doing by sending suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured. This is inevitable, but I still think in many cases, such as Palestinian suicide bombers or Israeli tank and helicopter attacks on demonstrators, a reasonable person can be critical of both practices.

It seems fair to say that we are mostly all aware of Palestinian cases of violence against innocent Israeli citizens.  The BBC has a summary of these atrocities.  Furthermore, the Human Rights Watch has a well documented page outlining some myths about the legality of terrorism and the nature of the groups that perpetrate these crimes.

The General Assembly’s Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories which have been blocked by the Israeli government but has nonetheless written reports based on interviews and visits to neighboring countries has documented Israeli violations.

According to the UN reports:

Furthermore, on the United Nation’s website The Question of Palestine , the Security Council has affirmed its position  :

A peaceful solution to this conflict is ultimately going to embody dealing with issues that have a legal nature such as water in The West Bank or Israeli settlers on potential Palestinian land (as seen on these maps), as well as of course Palestinian suicide bombers and the use of mortar rockets.

Cosmopolitanism: Ok this may come across as a bit of a stretch, but I think one fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives, perhaps unacknowledged, is that the progressives have a more cosmopolitan perspective.  What I mean by this is that progressives espouse to see themselves as human beings first before other identities and to identify others in the same fashion. I think it is this basis which would draw us to respecting the United Nations Charter, The Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other forms of international law.  This may just be speculation or perhaps it is an ideal to strive for.  

Judicious use of the Military: This topic is probably going to be one of great disagreement, and it is a tough one. When I think of this topic I am reminded of David Ben-Gurion’s quote:

However, having been in touch with the news in the region in recent times I have noticed many sources complain of disproportionate use of force used by Israelis in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  The BBC reported that Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing warcrimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian militants targeting civilians.  

It seems that the issue of how much force is acceptable or necessary is a subject of much dispute. I understand Israel’s unique survival situation, but think it makes sense to be critical of excessive force and inhumane practices.

The Solution! Now, this is the hard part. Well for starters there are some reference points to investigate. There was the Oslo Peace Process that started in 1993 and went until 2000. A major document, that kicked off the process which was conducted between Ehud Barak and the Yassir Arafat, was the Declaration of Principles. The BBC has a timeline of this process and updates it until 2003. It seems fair to say that the Oslo process has fallen apart, although there are varying criticisms of the process which range from Amos Oz to Robert Fisk (he addresses it in the body of his column) to Noam Chomsky.

After this attempt there was a less known, less publicized process conducted by, former Israeli Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, former(?) Minister of Information and Culture for the Palestinian Authority known as the Geneva Accord. The BBC points out its framework. The strength of this process is that it deals with all the details and would cause both parties to make compromises. The compromises include the Palestinian’s Right of Return  for sharing Jerusalem as the capital for both states. For a good reference concerning the Geneva Accords look here and for a discussion between Rabbo and Beilin, you may want to check out this link at the Brookings Institute.

And alas, we have the Road Map which is a step by step process towards peace.  It declares:

The Road Map has received criticism of being vague, the same BBC link mentioned above notes:

Final Thoughts What I aimed to do was to frame this issue from a progressive point of view. When I think of different people’s relationship with the conflict I often find that many concerned people have their hearts in the right place but need to be engaged in other perspectives in order to adopt constructive views. In other words, I think, it is important for the reader who has not studied Israel but who has read about injustices done to Palestinians to lend an ear to Jewish history and the struggles of Israel, just as it is important for pro-Israeli folks to acknowledge these violations of human rights and the Palestinian perspective.  These are my thoughts and I write this more as a research topic than I do as any sort of expert on the subject.

Some Criticism I received when posted at the Daily Kos:

seesdifferent wrote (amongst other comments):

So I’ll include this link which states the unfortunate death toll since the beginning of the intifada:

Palestinians killed by Israelis: 3,135 killed by security forces in the West Bank and Gaza, 54 killed by security forces in Israel, 34 killed by Israeli citizens in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israelis killed by Palestinians: 431 civilians killed in Israel, 218 civilians killed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 218 Israeli security forces killed in West Bank and Gaza, 83 Israeli security forces killed in Israel.

one of the people wrote (amongst other comments):

I don’t disagree with this sentiment, but by cosmopolitan I did not mean a dissolution of group identities. What I meant was that I would hope in having our own identities we don’t lose sight of the universal qualities of humanity. I may be wrong though, it is speculation and one of the people does make some excellent points.

There was some good discussion about the issue at the Daily Kos post. I think it’s very a very important issue. It shapes the way America is viewed in the region and subsequently affects the Occupation of Iraq.

Crossposted at the daily kos earlier

I conducted an online interview with Josh Balk of the Humane Society of The United States.  Mr. Balk is the Outreach Coordinator for the Factory Farm Campaign and was happy to answer of my questions about factory farms and his involvement in animal welfare.

What made you want to get involved with animal protection issues?

In high school, I saw a documentary with graphic footage of standard factory farming practices, including scenes of chickens having parts of their beaks sliced off and pigs being castrated without any painkiller. I pledged at that moment to fight against animal cruelty.

What do you do at The Humane Society of the United States?

In The HSUS’s Factory Farming Campaign, I work with universities, food service companies, restaurants, and grocery stores to improve farm animal welfare. Unfortunately, most factory farm owners are not going to implement meaningful reform voluntarily, but their major purchasers–such as grocery and restaurant chains–can demand that they improve their conditions if they want to continue doing business with them.

More after the break..
Don’t factory farms treat their animals well in order to produce food efficiently?

While there are some instances where improving animal welfare would also improve the bottom line, unfortunately, this isn’t usually the case. As farm animal welfare expert Donald Broom, M.Sc., Ph.D. writes, “[E]fforts to achieve earlier and faster growth, greater production per individual, efficient feed conversion and partitioning, and increased prolificacy are the causes of some of the worst animal welfare problems.”

Which animal is the most abused in factory farming?

Chickens are by far the most abused animals in factory farming. Chickens raised for meat are selectively bred and given antibiotics to grow so quickly that their legs, lungs, and organs often can’t keep up with their unnatural size. Egg-laying chickens are forced to live inside cages too small for them even to spread their wings. Every hour in the United States, one million chickens are slaughtered.

Aren’t there laws which protect farm animals?

From life on a factory farm to death at a slaughter plant, animals raised for meat, eggs, and milk suffer immensely. And, as shocking as it may be, much of the abuse these animals endure is perfectly legal. There are no federal animal welfare laws regulating the treatment of the billions of “food animals” while they’re on the farm. And while all 50 states have cruelty statutes, most explicitly exempt common farming practices, no matter how abusive. The simple fact is that if we treated our dogs or cats the way farm animals are treated, we’d be charged with animal cruelty.

As consumers, what can we do to help farm animals?

The Humane Society of the United States believes in the Three R’s–refine, reduce, replace–approach to helping animals. Whether it’s refining our diet to exclude the most abusive animal products, reducing our consumption of animal products, or replacing meat, eggs, and dairy products with vegetarian options, each one of us can take concrete action to help reduce farm animal suffering.

[End of interview]

Donations can be made to the Humane Society