Desicritics Comments on Terrorism and Moral Outrage

Comment by kerty

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:52:47 EST

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.

Comment by Roshnai

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:36:06 EST

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.

Comment by kerty

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:49:59 EST

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?

Comment by Roshnai

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:19:40 EST

"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.

Comment by Sanjay

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:09:42 EST

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.

Comment by Ledzius

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:49:44 EST

"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.

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:42:23 EST

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.

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:03:05 EST

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.

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:01:04 EST

Comment by K. M.

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:18:16 EST

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.

Comment by kerty

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:07:45 EST

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.

Comment by K. M.

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:58:11 EST

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).

Comment by Sanjay

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:38:33 EST

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.