Moral Relativism, or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

[theducks]

As I write this, I see many people on the twitters and facebooks posting a quote supposedly from Martin Luther King Jr, which posits:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Not forgeting Gahndi's

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Or Yoda's

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering"

The US spent 14 years and over $1 Trillion finding Bin Laden, and surrrprise surprise, he was shot while resisting capture. "Dead or Alive", as George W put it. All we can do now is move forward and make change you can believe in, erm, amends, and try to not let it happen again. Yeah, right.

Yoda was spot on, for the record.

It probably goes without saying for most of you reading this, that you are aware that morality is relative, based on where you're standing. Some people though, don't agree/quite remember that Right and Wrong are moral choices. For the most part, it is difficult to judge people based on morality other than your own. Sure, as society we have moral standards, but many are not rigidly black and white, there's a lot of gray.

Given the audience I have for this post, I'll put this out here - chances are, you're not American. Some of you are, sure, but you're more likely to be either Australian, Canadian or "other" (Hi Rosie!). The fact is, they are a different culture. Sure, there are plenty of similarities, similar language, but we do have individual identities. Thankfully.

As a trope, many people think of blood magic as inherently evil, regardless of the intent.

Many people think that about celebrating a death too, regardless of the victim. It's just something you _don't do ever_.

And you're allowed to think that, regardless of why. Such is your own individual moral choice. But this is one of those areas for me where it's a grey area of morality. Celebrating a death isn't going to make someone more dead. How many layers of abstraction do you need to place between a death and the results of someone's passing before it becomes ok to say that the change is good? Does that abstraction really do any good? Aren't they still morally the same?

What is the difference between saying "I'm glad SEAL team six launched a 40 person assault on a compound in Abbotobad Pakistan and shot Osama Bin Laden in the eye" and saying "I'm glad that Al-Qaeda no longer has a definitive figurehead"? I see them as equivalent, if somewhat differently phrased ways of portraying the same thing.

Let me Godwin this out for you: how is "I'm glad the Nazi's were defeated" different from "I'm glad allied troops took back Europe from Nazi forces by killing anyone who didn't surrender?".

If you launch a war of aggression, and murder thousands of innocent civilians, you and I clearly have some different opinions on how to influence people and what is right and proper behaviour, and I'm happy for you to be dealt with under your own moral code.

I'm sad that they were unable to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to trial, however his moral views would have had no problem with the manner of his death, and if he didn't mind, I don't believe we should either. There are more important things to address now. Reducing everything to soundbites and metaphor reduces the ability to rationally discuss, but.. "live by the sword, die by the sword". He styled himself as a warrior, who brought death to innocents, on the assumption that he would one day die, preferably in battle.

I saw comments calling for his body to smeared with pigs blog and strung up outside the White House. Some people over-react, and I'm happy with calling them out for it to. The US did the right thing in giving him a mostly religiously appropriate burial. In much the same way that the location of Hitler's death is now a parking lot, you would not want his burial location to be used as a shrine. It showed their respect for his religion, even if he corrupted that religion for his own ideals.

The actual operation raises a number of questions - particularly about Pakistan's sovereign rights to not have US armed forces kill people inside its borders, but the dynamic of terrorism and how to fight it is not one that respects diplomatic norms. I'm sure the US will say sorry and promise that if they ever have to catch-or-kill Osama Bin Laden again, they'll ask first. But they're not going to say anything about Mullah Omar. It's all very well to use the Niemoller quote of "at first they came for the X [..] then when they came for me, there was no-one left", but it's not a slope that is that slippery. For anyone else, they'll just get your government to extradite you.

The information that lead to this assault apparently came out of a US detainee. I don't know where, and I don't know how. I'm hoping it wasn't torture, because there are fates worse than death, and that is one of them. We are the good guys, we shouldn't do that. I am hoping that the reason Guantanamo Bay was kept open this long was because they got it from someone in there, and they did not want that person talking before they could act on it. Wikileaks very nearly gave the game away, last week releasing a report mentioning a courier for Osama Bin Laden based out of Abbottabad.

I'll put it out there: I'm against the death penalty, I'm not in favour of wars of aggression, and I'm glad he has been "neutralised", however it occurred. In this case, I think the ends justify the means, as they sometimes do, and that's a moral call on my part. I know I couldn't be the guy going in with the SMG killing people, but that's why I'm not in the military. This is also why we have a military, to do distasteful things on our behalf.

Were I in Obama's place and had the head of the CIA come up to me and say "We're 99.99% sure we've found Bin Laden. Can I send a 40 man team into Pakistan to capture or kill him?", I'm confident I would say yes. But that doesn't make it any easier.



Conventional wisdom/morality is easy to understand because we've seen the paths that decisions lead in, the normal ones and the outliers. We know the risks. The problem is that there are situations where normal morality doesn't apply easily, because the questions are so uncommon that there is not an adequate amount outcomes to evaluate. The classic questions here are the ticking timebomb/torture scenario and survival lottery scenarios. By not taking the morally reprehensible option, you are making things far worse than the consequences of taking the option.

I'm glad that the news of his defeat has helped give closure to many in the US and around the world who were affected by his acts. If 300 of your co-workers were killed on someone's orders, wouldn't you be at least a little bit glad to see him gone? How about 3000 people from your town? Your city? At what point does it become not ok?



Bin Laden was more than a person to many on both sides of the equation. The inability to catch or kill him gnawed at the western world, but particularly the American consciousness. He was the boogeyman strawman in so many positions taken by people, both good and bad, to justify their actions, both good and bad. I have great anger towards him for the measures our governments have taken in his name that erode our freedoms and civil liberties. I'm not thrilled with them either, but we have elections, a way to theoretically make them change. I am glad he now cannot be used as an argument to influence, as it will be a harder sell to continue them in the future.

The biggest surprise to me was as Obama announced the details of his death. I was expecting something along the lines of "grave/bones found/dna testing complete". I thought he was long dead. The fact he was killed in the last 72 hours is something I can't get over.

What I'm really looking forward to is what happens next. We've killed the bogeyman. Job well done, now let's get rid of all the blankets we put up to keep him out.

Comments

[velithya]

nice post.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

Your premise seems to be that the only possible way these things could have happened (removal of OBL as a political force, defeat of Germany in WW2) is through violence.

No, just that it was the ultimately successful way. Through 15 years of constant pressure the US attempted to have him handed over to them for trial for offences committed against them. That didn't happen and he was still a figurehead for violence committed in the west.

Political pressure and activism is fine for dealing with with trade embargos or tariff disagreements, but when the problem is violence, you can't let it go on for too long, as the consequences are too great.

I believe that sometimes in diplomacy, you have to accept that peaceful negotiations have failed, and let your hired goons take Old Yeller out the back.

We must be vigilant about not shooting first, but in self defence or defence of others against violence, then sometimes it's the only way out.

Does that mean we are morally OK to take a gun and shoot everyone that buys into the concept of martyrdom?

If they put you in a position to say "kill me or I will kill you/some other innocent third party", then yes.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

I believe that sometimes in diplomacy, you have to accept that peaceful negotiations have failed, and let your hired goons take Old Yeller out the back.

We must be vigilant about not shooting first, but in self defence or defence of others against violence, then sometimes it's the only way out.

In order to give these words credence and agree that the hit team was a violence of last resort, wouldn't we need a little more evidence?

Seems more likely that Bin Laden was killed as soon as his whereabouts became known, which would hardly indicate an exhaustion of diplomatic potential.

When it come to violence of last resort, I'm not certain it's ever really possible to satisfy the burden of proving that action is absolutely necessary, and all non-violent methods of resolution have failed and will continue to fail.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

The US tried to get Sudan and Afghanistan to hand him over at times when they knew where he was.

It's a diplomatic issue as to if they had the right to go in and nab him in Pakistan, but not if he should have been nabbed.

As he is not a state actor and able to escape the rule of law in the country he resided in, it is no longer a diplomatic issue - it's a criminal issue, and he was shot while resisting arrest.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Seems a bit like an ex post facto argument to me Alex.

Your original quote suggested "self defence" or "defence ... against violence" as justifications for shooting and killing Bin Laden but nothing has been reported to indicate he was actively plotting further violence.

Doesn't it seem more likely that Bin Laden, as a target of the US state, was deliberately assassinated in a military operation with some degree of lip service to niceties affecting forthcoming media reportage (such as a brief pretence of arrest)?

I don't have a qualified opinion on your other arguments, and I haven't heard any concrete reports on which Pakistani authorities condoned or were kept out of the US operation. There seems to be strong speculation out there that the ISI were in the know on Bin Laden's location for some time.

I'd be very interested in links regarding the definitions of the terms "diplomatic issue", "state actors" and the concepts in international jurisprudence you're applying: I don't know much about it!

[theducks.livejournal.com]

Diplomacy is about preventing conflict between states. In this instance, there was no public conflict between the US and Pakistan over him - both sides agreed that he was a bad guy and needed to be dealt with.

The issue was that Pakistan could not deal with him, possibly for internal political reasons, possibly due to lack of resources, etc. Whatever his crimes and misdeeds, they weren't on Pakistan's behalf, making him a Non-state actor

I don't believe the circumstances of his death will deteriorate relations between the US and Pakistan significantly. Pakistan has no leverage on the US to use, and like any wise nation, they don't want to be in their bad books. Pakistan will have to complain, both for internal reasons and external reasons. The US probably won't apologise, and that will likely be the end of it.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the clarifications / links!

The US and Pakistan have a rather tangled relationship. Pakistan is a poor country constantly at risk of implosion, that receives conditional aid and institutional support from the US government, but also has a strong political constituency (highly regionalised) in favour of radical Islam.

One presumes neither Pakistan nor the US will be to eager to crow about how they collaborated with the other to achieve Bin Laden's death. Everyone wants to give the credit to Obama!

[theducks.livejournal.com]

From greyreviews via a FB comment:

I would argue that there is only a moral dilemma if you make the assumptions that all human life is of equal value and that value is something irreplaceable ergo taking any life is bad.

Both assumptions have no logical basis, as it is clearly obvious that the value of one person is never going to be the same as another unless they live identical lives with identical actions, outcomes and achievements. Even twins do not qualify for this.

The assumption human life is of an irreplaceable value is currently proven wrong nearly 7 billion times over.

So considering human life is neither irreplaceable or of a singular value the killing of any individual or for that matter group is completely moral. This is the case for not only the Osamas and Stalins of the world but just as moral, in the sense of taking life, as it is to shoot Mother Teresa in the face.

There is a difference, but it is not in their living rather in their actions. All three are (in)famous individuals who are remembered beyond their death and had a profound effect on others. All lived, but that is unremarkable, when future generations mention these three names, no one will be saying “Hey this person sure was alive!” The actions are what makes these people memorable and their actions are what they are judged by and it is by the stopping of their actions that we can judge the morality of their killing.

Kill Osama and you stop his actions to encourage violent Islamic attacks around the world. Kill Stalin and you stop his actions to oppress and kill millions of his fellow citizens. Kill Mother Teresa and you stop her actions of handing out food and comfort to lepers. This of course brings back to my first point that we are not of equal value and the assumption that we are is completely lacking in any basis of logic or reality.

So I’m not dancing in the street like some mardi-gra wannabe over Osama’s death but do I approve of his actions being stopped? Yes indeed and I feel no moral dilemma in thinking so.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

What does the word "value" even mean in relation to a human life anyway?

The elimination of Bin Laden was made one of the top priorities of huge, well-funded US institutions that are habituated to pragmatic murder, torture and kidnapping with scant regard to rights or foreign sovereignty.

Once his whereabouts were known and the pragmatic barriers (diplomacy, media profile, feasibility) were surmounted I rather doubt the ethical questions were even considered. If so, by what "conscience"? Obama's? I rather beg to differ; he had little room to move under the circumstances.

It's a mistake to tally up the ethical score of a corporation. One cannot reason with corporations, only create, dismantle, fund or bluntly regulate them. The US military establishment is, among its many varied aspects, a murder corporation.

The speculation I've increasingly heard is that the crucial moment of discretion regarding Bin Laden's fate, if there truly were one, probably lay with as yet unnamed representatives of the Pakistani ISI.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting post mate. Apart from being relatively sanguine about the fact of the death of Bin Laden, I find myself in nuanced disagreement with most of it.

Firstly I don't feel particularly angry with terrorists for supposedly spurring on the formation of the modern surveillance state or the fruitless measures of security theatre with which we now deal more often. I feel much more anger towards opportunist, populist governments for this.

Secondly I don't think the "dynamic" of terrorism demands extraordinary measures of precise violent action without regard for foreign sovereignty.

Realistically our fears of terrorist attack would be best allayed by an end to economic and resource imperialism, an end to Western geopolitical interference in the Middle East, a reduction in global inequality and a genuine willingness on the part of ostensibly liberal nations to engage with foreign cultures on a variety of grounds.

From our governments, an end to hostile regulatory behaviour against Muslims (hijab bans, controls and bans on mosque placement, etc.) and other ethnic and religious minorities in the West would be useful, as would an end to the props to reprehensible dictatorships: although our governments have now lost the option to cease tacit support for the likes of Hosni Mubarak, as his own people have taken power from him. Bring on a similar end to the twisted, popularly loathed regime of the Wahhabists in Riyadh, responsible for funding Bin Laden as was the US at one stage!

Thirdly, I don't agree that the ends justify the means in this case. We don't know what ongoing threat Bin Laden posed, and there seems to be little definable value in killing him if there were no such threat.

The expert response I've processed (Fisk, Ali et al.) seems to agree that killing him does nothing to neutralise Al-Qaeda, that he could not have been directing a terrorist organisation, and that the consequences of his murder could be both good and bad, but will be largely insignificant. Blood retribution for his victims is a poor justification when you consider the deaths caused by the US military in the name of 9/11.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

From our governments, an end to hostile regulatory behaviour against Muslims (hijab bans, controls and bans on mosque placement, etc.) and other ethnic and religious minorities in the West would be useful, as would an end to the props to reprehensible dictatorships: although our governments have now lost the option to cease tacit support for the likes of Hosni Mubarak, as his own people have taken power from him. Bring on a similar end to the twisted, popularly loathed regime of the Wahhabists in Riyadh, responsible for funding Bin Laden as was the US at one stage!

I agree - hated of Muslims in the west grew from fear. I hope that the death of this one Muslim shows people of the west that they are not supernatural beings, that even boogeymen like OBL can be killed despite their adherence to corrupted interpretations of Islam.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Just read John Quiggin's response to events which is typically well reasoned, though limited in scope.

I suspect he's right on the money when it comes to civil liberties:

"Coming to the bad news, the success of the US intelligence machine in locating bin Laden is obviously going to strengthen Obama’s position in claiming that he has special knowledge that justifies suspending civil liberties. Reading the accounts in, for example, the New York Times, it’s clear that their sources are trying to make claims for intelligence extracted under torture even though (on my reading) they didn’t actually get anything useful from these sources (the NYT quotes an intelligence source as saying that the value was in what was not said, which could justify just about anything)."

http://is.gd/qm6eR8

[theducks.livejournal.com]

"Obama’s position in claiming that he has special knowledge that justifies suspending civil liberties" or "Obama’s position in claiming that he had special knowledge that justified suspending civil liberties" is something that only time can tell.

OBL's death means they can't use him as a scapegoat anymore. As I said, it's what happens next that I'm hopeful for.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

The point of Quiggin's argument is that Bin Laden may undergo a post mortem mutation from the scapegoat that justified the suspension of civil liberties to the success story that will justify their permanent removal.

It's a fairly compelling argument that ends in a conclusion contradictory to your own.

Rather than resulting in a blank slate for the public psyche when it comes to terrorism-related paranoia, and a subsequent relaxation of the extended powers snatched by governments post 9/11 (the "blankets" of your OP), the operation to kill Bin Laden will likely be used to endorse and entrench those powers.

[theducks.livejournal.com]

He might, he might not. I don't think it's easy enough to predict which way it will swing. I understand the risk that Quiggin proposes though, absolutely, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. But you're right, it could.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not "right". But I think Quiggin's argument has plenty of merit.

Fits better with my perception of why new arrest laws, rationalisations of torture and rendition, military courts, prisons on foreign sites, and surveillance and border control laws were implemented in the first place in various countries.

The minimum pretext for acquiring a novel power is usually far greater than that required to maintain the status quo. Fixing civil liberties simply won't be on the agenda until the media cycle throws up a cause célèbre.