Let's not even start talking about "crimes against humanity" because when you start to get into it, what leader - in the name of goodness, righteousness and justice - has not committed inconceivable atrocities? Because neglect is the same thing as action when it comes to doing harm to others.
Think Bush before, during and after Katrina.
Or Dominique de Villepin during and after last year's riots. And now, more of the same.
Or, depending on whose side you're on, Chavez, Castro, Khomeini (note the disputed neutrality especially), Lenin, Queen Victoria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon...
the list goes on and on.
And what about the leaders who sell their countries to the IMF, or who sign up for free trade agreements that allow international corporations to overtake the native industry of their countries (think every banana republic).
And how are we going to convict every contemporary leader in every industrialized and developing nation for their responsibility in fast-forwarding the planet's destruction? Who pays for that? Who dies for that?
I can't even rant about this because it causes such rage that I become unintelligible and irrational.
best when viewed in low light
11.05.2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that comparing Bush's neglect and dismal lack of attention of Katrina is on par with Saddam Hussein's mass slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of people. You are engaging in a form of moral equivalence (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence) that is questionable.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your statement that neglect can be the same thing as action when it comes to doing harm. Example: Darfur. Your comparison and overall argument, which certainly has some validity, would be stronger if you kept an eye on
philsophical traps, which often come about from political dissatisfaction or (seemingly not in your case) partisan feelings.
You say: "I can't even rant about this because it causes such rage that I become unintelligible and irrational."
Irrationality is a good term for the sort of hyperbolic comparison you're making, which ultimately detracts from your more astute claim.
I totally appreciate your comments. And yes, I am using a moral equivalence.
ReplyDeleteIf you get into an argument where action (or inaction) is a matter of levels of morality, as far as I am concerned, you are already lost.
Killing people, or being the cause of another person's death is not a moral act, or it is. But one way of doing it is equivalent to any other way.
Morality is already a slippery slope. There is no objective way to determine morals, so there can be no hierarchical determination of moralistic levelling, as you suggest.
Just wanted to note: The two deleted comments are exact replicas of the third, which stands as submitted.
ReplyDelete