Monday, 18 June 2007
The Action & its Doer
Does the ethical standard of an action depend on who's doing the acting? I wonder if, for example, we took the case of the invasion of Iraq but instead of the US and British regimes, we were to substitute China as the aggressor- how would this attack be viewed by the West? Likewise if we substituted the invasion of Afghanistan with Chinese forces, and again the desire to attack Iran by Chinese forces with the same offered justifications. The same Abu Ghraib abuses but again substitute Chinese for Americans with the same claims that this wasn't officially sanctioned. Also, extraordinary rendition of foreign citizens to secret torture-friendly prisons by Chinese forces with the same claims that this is a war against a dreadful enemy requiring such behaviour. Would these actions be viewed the same by supporters of the current imperialist Western expansionism? Being presumptuous enough to say no, they would be viewed differently- why? Are we in Cecil Rhodes territory, ie the Anglo-Saxon is innately superior and his invisible motives to be trusted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Those bloody Chinese at it again I see! Seriously though good points; and you know maybe the famous Rhodes quote: "all of these stars... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets".
Good points - you know the famous Rhodes comment maybe: "all of these stars... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets"
We in the West can be misguided in our actions and be misrepresented by the actions of a lunatic few, but it is hard to see how you can really make this comparison. I would think that China's human rights record -- sanctioned by the state -- invalidates your argument and that, yes, we in the West do have a better record in matters such as this.
No Chip, I'm saying if the actions were identical but done by the Chinese governement as opposed to the US & British how would we view them. I'm not making an argument about China vs the West. We know China's regime is of dubious morality and so we would be quick to judge the aggressive actions in the light of that. I suppose I'm trying to point out that if we take away the benefit of the doubt from the current US/British regimes' actions then those actions begin to be seen in a clearer light.
That Rhodes comment new to me Gearoid- I'll look it up.
Why I wonder do I suddenly have to ok the comments?
I think I've it figured out...says he with no sense of confidence.
I think though I may have somehow lost a couple of comments though..if so, apologies.
I am a lost comment. Someone help me!
This is like a textual essentialist argument for reading a book without prior knowledge of the author, the text, or even the language, and therefore enabling the reader to judge it more fairly.
I suppose you’re arguing that we cannot ever really do that. We are always bound within some context that has a direct (or even indirect) bearing on our reading of the situation. The very fact we hold a book in our hands presupposes a value judgment has already been made. Similarly, the only actions we could judge without some value judgment already having being passed are those made by a body of people with no history. Decontructionists would have it that our language is full of value judgements, which we can never escape.
So, in other words, morality is tied to context. We are always going to be blighted by our colonialist past. The Bush family’s contacts in the oil industry make people assume Bush invaded Iraq for that reason. Moral judgements change based on this knowledge. Contexts always influences our judgments, rightly or wrongly, but we just cannot escape them. And if we change the context, we would be making different value judgments which are not directly equivalent.
However, as much as my mind tells me that all this is correct, I’m still a textual essentialist at heart.
Excellent post, Chip. To go on from your point I'd argue that the US & British regimes are implementing a very aggressive policy at the moment which if you look up the Project for a New American Century was seen as desirable well before 911. However because the West has a democratic tradition and very desirable recent human rights histories compared to China or the old USSR, the US & British regimes benefit from seeming to represent these comparatively benevolent traditions. However their actions undermine and reverse the democratic traditions rather than represent them, but for various reasons they are not viewed in the light they should be. There's a line from that sage, Jesus, "By their actions shall ye know them" wich I think should be taken much more seriously.
Post a Comment