Subscribe to Desicritics
Terrorism and Moral Outrage
K. M.
In my last post, I wrote about political outrage among the public (directed at the politicians) in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Mumbai and why it is unjustified (Ramesh has a long post on a similar theme that, unlike mine, is not polemical). This post is about moral outrage and its importance.
Why do we feel morally outraged by a terrorist attack? Is it because of the number of people who are injured or killed? No. People die because of a number of causes but we don’t feel outraged by their deaths. Is it because the deaths were untimely? No. People die in accidents but we don’t feel outraged at that. Is it because the deaths were preventable? No. People die in adventure sports but we don’t feel outraged by that. We feel outraged because the injuries and deaths inflicted by the terrorists are unjust. Because the people who suffer do not deserve to suffer. Because they are not morally responsible for the whatever grievances (if any) the terrorists may have. Specifically, the moral value that the terrorists outrage is justice. And the implicit principle by which we recognize the violation of justice is deliberate initiation of force - the use of force against men who did not use it. Consider a some simple examples to see that it is indeed so.
A soldier is practicing with his rifle in an enclosure. Someone accidentally enters it and gets killed. We do not feel outraged at the soldier because his act was not deliberate.
A trader on the stock market loses his entire fortune and kills himself. We do not feel outraged at the other traders on the market because there is no force involved.
A criminal tries to set fire to someone’s house. The victim happens to have a gun and shoots the criminal. We do not feel outraged at the victim because he has not initiated force, but merely used it in retaliation.
Note that this principle is an absolute. No mitigating factors, ideas, or convictions can justify deliberate initiation of force. If men wish to remain in a civilized society (and with the size of the world population being what it is, there is no other way to live), they must recognize this principle, or rather, the extent to which a society recognizes and implements this principle is the extent of its civilization.
A person who violates this principle is a criminal and deserves to be treated as such. Most people who do so are petty, short sighted crooks who seek short term gains and hope to get away with their crimes. They deserve punishment proportionate to their crimes (and it is a matter of philosophy of law to determine this punishment). A terrorist however is not an ordinary criminal. Whatever his motivations, he is not after short term gains. His acts are a rejection of civilization as such. The only appropriate response - morally and practically - to a terrorist act is the use of overwhelming force in retaliation and defense. Morally, overwhelming force is justified because what is at stake is the very principle of civilization. Practically, overwhelming force is necessary, because any indication of uncertainty can only increase the motivation of the terrorists (more so when the terrorists are motivated by supremacist religious principles). The only proper issues to be considered in a response to a terrorist act are ones of strategy - not what needs to be done, but how it should be done.
Such a response might involve civilian casualties in the countries that harbor and promote terrorism. The moral responsibility for any innocent people who may suffer in such an attack belongs to the terrorists, to the governments who support them and to the civilians who elect the governments. And it is here that moral courage and certainty comes into play. Are we so sure of our innocence that we are willing to take all measures to protect them? Do we value our lives enough to believe that force used in retaliating to lethal threats is always justified? Do we believe fully in the justice of our cause to accept the idea that there are no innocents in war?
Needless to say, we do not have such courage or certainty. And for good reason. We simply do not value our lives high enough. We believe in a code of ethics that holds serving others as the highest virtue. We constantly tolerate any amount of interference from the governments in our private lives. We advocate policies that are based on nothing but coercion. We participate in a political system that recognizes no absolute principles and places no limitations on the powers of the government to coerce people. There is no way we can say that we deserve to live even if it takes a war that may kill innocents to secure our lives. Is it any wonder that the statements of our elected representatives are empty platitudes devoid of any meaning or intent? And is it any wonder that the terrorists are convinced that they are morally supreme?
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
The moral outrage that we feel everytime the terrorists attack, is a badge of virtue. It represents the implicit sense of justice that is needed for a civilized society. But in itself, it is not a guide to action. What we need is to understand the principles on which that sense of outrage is based and apply them consistently. Until we do so, until we establish a just society based on absolute moral principles, we will have no answer to terrorism.
Terrorism and Moral Outrage
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Culture
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » Politics: Terrorism
- » Desicritics.org articles by K. M.
- » K. M.'s personal weblog
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Sanjay
December 2, 2008
09:38 AM
You want to see some moral courage?
Take a look at this BBC article. It features a video (which is only viewable in IE, I can't get it to view in Firefox)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7760005.stm
Here you see a couple of local police constables taking on the terrorists. These policemen were heavily outgunned - they only had a single WW2-era .303 Enfield single-shot rifle between them, while the terrorist had a fully automatic AK-57 or H&K MP6.
It was very courageous and heroic of them to do that, instead of running away.
K. M.
URL
December 2, 2008
12:58 PM
Sanjay,
Indeed that is courageous, heroic and commendable. What I want to see however, is broader than that. I want to see people value their lives and freedom so much that they take personal responsibility for personal problems, reject any interference in their own lives and agree not to interfere in others' lives as a matter of principle. What I want to see is not an isolated instance of bravery but a lifelong commitment to justice (in the sense in which I mean it in my post).
kerty
December 2, 2008
01:07 PM
KM
"until we establish a just society based on absolute moral principles, we will have no answer to terrorism"
Do we have to suffer terrorism until we have a just society? And justness by whose standards? As defined by some ideology? So it is not just society until it says so? And we have to wait until we have such just society? That amounts to holding society on ransom. Pure and simple. Society is always going to be imperfect, facing all sorts of flaws and problems. That does not mean it can not do what is within its powers to do. Society must prioritize and do what must be done and not wait till they have some perfect kingdom of Rand.
K. M.
URL
December 2, 2008
02:18 PM
kerty,
I did explain what I mean by justice in the context of society and government - people who have not initiated force against others should not have to suffer the use of force. Do you deny that this principle needs to be respected in any civilized interactions between men?
"And we have to wait until we have such just society?"
It is not a question of waiting. It is simply that until such time, we will remain impotent to protect ourselves from terrorism. If you do not believe me, just watch our politicians "prioritize" over the next few days.
"Society is always going to be imperfect, facing all sorts of flaws and problems."
Perfection in a social or political context does not mean that laws never get broken or that the guilty are always punished. It means that the political system institutionalizes the fundamental principles - such as the non initiation of force - that are necessary for proper interactions among men.
Sanjay
December 2, 2008
07:03 PM
An act of war is an act of war, and there doesn't have to be a whole lot of soul-searching to figure that out, or recognize the obvious. Rather than waxing philosophically about this, we have to see that times like this are what patriotism is for. The fact that so many among us always rubbish the idea of patriotism, should tell us immediately what kind of ethics they have, and the dark times they have led us to.
Those who are devoid of patriotism will only come to suffer the humiliations and pain of those without a nation to stand with them.
Sanjay
December 2, 2008
09:42 PM
I stand corrected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield
"It was the British Army's standard rifle from its official adoption in 1895 until 1957."
Oh great - our chattering classes are equipped with laptops from the 21st century, but the men who put their lives in harm's way are equipped with rifles from 1895.
A Tale of Two Indias.
Ledzius
December 2, 2008
11:49 PM
"Rather than waxing philosophically about this, we have to see that times like this are what patriotism is for. The fact that so many among us always rubbish the idea of patriotism, should tell us immediately what kind of ethics they have, and the dark times they have led us to."
Right on! I was a kid through the '71 Indo-Pak war, and no one felt uncomfortable in telling me and others that Pakistan was our "enemy". We were able to see everything in black and white, and there was no shame in doing that.
In these days of moral greyness, it seems like words like "patriotism", "enemy", etc. seem to be eschewed by the liberal intelligentsia and the people who resort to such terms in describing Pakistan are ridiculed and considered to be infra-dig. Many Indians openly look down upon other Indians who claim to be patriotic as though the whole concept is silly.
Many of these "intellectuals" get these ideas when they go to the US and then start working with Pakistani colleagues at school/work. Just because they might be cordial and have lunch together, many Indians start taking these at face value. If only they start digging deeper, they would realise that these same Pakistani colleagues that appear so friendly to them would also be members of various Islamic associations and mosques which only preach hatred against Indians and other infidels. I've had first hand experience in this regard.
The fact that many Pakistanis indulge in duplicity is lost on many Indians there, especially the women.
Sanjay
December 3, 2008
01:09 AM
Take a look at more "mainstream" Pakistani news broadcasting:
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrxxaEZFaec
Listen to what this so-called "analyst" is saying.
Actually, this guy would find plenty of company on a left-wing site like this.
He doesn't have to expend any effort to come up with hate ideology against us. Our own haters within India are more than willing to create the propaganda that guys like him can parrot later on.
Roshnai
December 3, 2008
01:19 AM
"Rather than waxing philosophically about this, we have to see that times like this are what patriotism is for. The fact that so many among us always rubbish the idea of patriotism, should tell us immediately what kind of ethics they have, and the dark times they have led us to."
CONTRADICTION: Implying Philosophy is of no use in this, still rueing the degradation of Ethics in some way. (Ethics IS a chapter in Philosophy)
"We were able to see everything in black and white, and there was no shame in doing that.
In these days of moral greyness, it seems like words like "patriotism", "enemy", etc. seem to be eschewed by the liberal intelligentsia and the people who resort to such terms in describing Pakistan are ridiculed and considered to be infra-dig."
Patriotism may be a virtue, but not a fundamental one. So anybody who lists patriotism deep down his value ladder, cannot be termed immoral. Simply because, a fundamental virtue cannot stop at the boundary of one's house, the boundary of one's state(Raj Thackrey?), or at the boundary of a country.
kerty
December 3, 2008
01:49 AM
Roshnai
"Patriotism may be a virtue, but not a fundamental one. So anybody who lists patriotism deep down his value ladder, cannot be termed immoral. Simply because, a fundamental virtue cannot stop at the boundary of one's house, the boundary of one's state(Raj Thackrey?), or at the boundary of a country."
Since virtue of being a good father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, family person etc would be deemed being within boundary of relationship and family, hence they would not be considered fundamental virtues. We can extend the same to being a good member of our community, work place, society, and country. They all can be sacrificed for what? What would be fundamental virtues - being selfish, self-centered? Kindly inform us what would be fundamental virtues for which we must sacrifice and subordinate all other virtues including those we derive from family, community, nation, patriotism. Should we consider spies, turn-coats, double-agents, trojan horses, fifth columns, saboteur and traitors as engaged in pursuit of fundamental virtues?
Roshnai
December 3, 2008
03:36 AM
1. Rationality is a stem of fundamental virtue, all the virtues cited above are leaves, mere extensions.
2. A virtue needs no sacrifice from another virtue. They are non-contradictory in nature.
3. The gentlemen mentioned in the last line are hardly rational, simply because you cannot breach another human being's rights in order to pursue what you perceive as your virtues.
kerty
December 3, 2008
03:52 AM
Roshnai
"1. Rationality is a stem of fundamental virtue, all the virtues cited above are leaves, mere extensions."
Why is being a good father or husband is not rational? Why is being patriotic citizen not rational?
"2. A virtue needs no sacrifice from another virtue."
Than why would you want to sacrifice patriotism for some other virtues? If your rationality requires you to sacrifice patriotism, than rationality is not really a virtue - fundamental virtue or otherwise.
I expect lots of BS on Randian threads, but this one eats the cake.
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8529)