tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post7996549679377334989..comments2024-01-28T09:52:30.550-08:00Comments on Arash's World: Genocide, Terrorism and the Idea of JusticeArash Farzanehhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12000344680925876563noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post-21136231756843229892014-01-07T10:41:13.522-08:002014-01-07T10:41:13.522-08:00Well, Vincent, this time you have hit the nail on ...Well, Vincent, this time you have hit the nail on the head and you got me (in both senses of the word)! Yes, that issue is indeed the heart of this "thought experiment" I undertook. I wanted to separate morality from justice, but as I was going along I noticed how linked they are to each other. In fact, justice seems to be a moral concept.<br /><br />So what I did is I diluted the moral precepts by trying to leave out motivations and intentions, such as "I stole the piece of bread because my child was hungry" and by ignoring the degree of the sentence or punishment, in other words, treating a slap on the hand as equal to chopping it off. And I ended with a somewhat crippled version of justice, which at times resembles your example of “rough justice.”<br /><br />But still I find some of its findings surprising, for example, a criticism of bombings as the accepted idea of modern warfare, which often attacks civilians. In fact, there should be a type of moral restraint or awareness even in the brutal times of war, and one ought to be as fair as possible regardless of one’s situations or circumstances. So at least I hope.<br />Arash Farzanehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000344680925876563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post-10796590515105365602014-01-07T00:09:05.141-08:002014-01-07T00:09:05.141-08:00I confess that I dodged another question of defini...I confess that I dodged another question of definitions in my previous comment. When you speak of justice, to me it sounds like morality with another name. When you call something unjust, it seems that you are saying that you disapprove of it, and if we all agreed to disapprove of it, the world will be a better place. Which is what I call morality.<br /><br />I think of justice as consisting of laws, jurisdiction and enforcement. At any rate, that is the start point of the definition. From there we can talk of "rough justice"; for example where a robber who has terrorized a helpless elderly couple in their own house is pursued by a relative down the street and then battered with a cricket bat, fatally as it happened. (This happened locally, a few years ago. The batterer was acquitted.) Rough justice in other words is when popular opinion says "he got what he deserved", but proper justice would have proceeded judicially.<br /><br />This rather simple example illustrates what happens in real life, in the heat of passion.<br /><br />I appreciate that you "want to look at it from a rational point of view devoid of morality, judgement and motivations, as much as it is possible or feasible."<br /><br />I don't think it is possible or feasible at all, but to the extent that it is, it is morality.<br /><br />Setting aside the necessary distinction between morality and justice, both depend on opinion, and to a great extent on public opinion, which changes through the ages. There can be no absolute, unless there is an almighty God, who tells us what it is.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post-26432885233857577722014-01-06T19:03:13.626-08:002014-01-06T19:03:13.626-08:00Thank you for both of your comments! It is interes...Thank you for both of your comments! It is interesting that they are both semantic in nature and are about terrorism, which is on most people's mind these days.<br /><br />First off, to clarify my point, Peter, the "it" in the quoted passage does not refer to terrorism but to killing people because one thinks they deserve to die. To be sure, such indiscriminate killing occurs more in the war zone, but it can also happen in the name of religion, terrorism, nationalism, what-have-you.<br /><br />In fact, any anti-terrorist act, meaning the targeted killing of terrorists, could also be construed as a terrorist act. That may be so, but my focus here is not terrorism but actually justice; in what sense would it (terrorism) be justified.<br /><br />You also pick up on the atomic bombs. I must confess that I decided to sneak that in because I believe there is a third motive I am planning to blog about sometime soon, which is even worse and more unjust. But either way, I reject utilitarian views that such "sacrifice" has merits for history or for the future. In fact, if utilitarianism were to be true then Miley Cyrus would be better than Shakespeare because she makes more people happier than the latter. I gravely doubt that.<br /><br />Sure, Vincent, you have offered definitions here, but I still do not see how their inclusion would make my post clearer. Evidently when we talk about terrorism people have different conceptions and ideas on it. So be it. My focus is still on justice and whether terrorism is done for political change by the opposed or the weak and downtrodden does not change the fact that innocent people will die in the process unless again the target is the one that is directly responsible for those acts (and civilians are not).<br /><br />To sum up, in the examples I gave, there is indeed collateral damage and that is why I think it is unjust. I do not take sides here (at least I do not intend to) but want to look at it from a rational point of view devoid of morality, judgement and motivations, as much as it is possible or feasible.<br /><br />As to genocide and war being part of human nature and history, that may be true, but it also is about time that we clear our heads and enlighten our hearts and learn to see that these are not and can never be just actions. <br /><br />Arash Farzanehhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12000344680925876563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post-20607311759418081712014-01-06T01:57:24.681-08:002014-01-06T01:57:24.681-08:00It’s necessary, as Peter proposes, to be clear wha...It’s necessary, as Peter proposes, to be clear what terrorism is. I looked up the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and found these definitions:<br /><br /><i>Terrorism</i>: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims; (originally) such practices used by a government or ruling group (freq. through paramilitary or informal armed groups) in order to maintain its control over a population; (now usually) such practices used by a clandestine or expatriate organization as a means of furthering its aims.<br /><br /><i>Terrorist</i>: A person who uses violent and intimidating methods in the pursuit of political aims; <i>esp. </i>a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. <br />We see through the above that there can be state terrorism, but it refers to a government or ruling group to terrorize its own people. What a government authorizes and carries out beyond its own borders is part of its foreign policy. It may or may not be illegal, and either way, it may be immoral. (Not that there is any single authority to determine what is immoral—it’s a judgment open to each one of us, open to dispute.<br />According to the above definitions, the atom bombs dropped on Japan had nothing to do with terrorism. <br />But then, if we look at the Wikipedia articles on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism" rel="nofollow">State terrorism</a> and its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki" rel="nofollow">Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki</a>, we see the arguments raging hot still.<br />All I can add is that in history and prehistory, rape and genocide have been common, and I suspect that they are intrinsic to bringing us to where we are today. Terrorism as a means for the weak to fight against the strong through clandestine actions is a modern phenomenon. It is clear that the human race has not outgrown these ugly behaviours by the “have-nots” upon the “haves”. I don’t say this to make an egalitarian argument or to justify the behaviours, but to point out that civilization doesn’t develop evenly, and remind us that such crimes may arise from resentment and deprivation as much as from greed.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367161100956691682.post-4351161048495600682014-01-05T21:28:41.175-08:002014-01-05T21:28:41.175-08:00In any discussion of terrorism I feel it's nec...In any discussion of terrorism I feel it's necessary to first define it. This might help avoid statements like this “whether it is done by terrorists or by Americans and other Westerners”. For me terrorism is a violent act committed with the intention of instilling fear in order to achieve a political end. This definition would not include collateral damage. I’m not saying that that makes collateral damage less evil. It just helps to clarify the discussion. The two generally accepted motives for Hiroshima were to 1: scare the Japanese into surrender and 2: halt any planned Soviet advances in post-war Europe through intimidation. Both fit the above definition. This would make the two nuclear bombings the greatest acts of terrorism in modern times and President Truman a terrorist.Peter Hearnnoreply@blogger.com