I'm linking to this column by Charles Krauthammer because it recapitulates my sense of what's happening in Guantanamo and how we should respond to it.
I'm open to a revised opinion based on hard fact, but for now I think Krauthammer has it about right.
Here's an excerpt:
The self-flagellation has gone far enough. We know that al Qaeda operatives are trained to charge torture when they are in detention, and specifically to charge abuse of the Koran to inflame fellow prisoners on the inside and potential sympathizers on the outside.
In March the Navy inspector general reported that, out of about 24,000 interrogations at Guantanamo, there were seven confirmed cases of abuse, "all of which were relatively minor." In the eyes of history, compared to any other camp in any other war, this is an astonishingly small number. Two of the documented offenses involved "female interrogators who, on their own initiative, touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner." Not exactly the gulag.
The most inflammatory allegations have been not about people but about mishandling the Koran. What do we know here? The Pentagon reports (Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, May 26) -- all these breathless "scoops" come from the U.S. government's own investigations of itself -- that of 13 allegations of Koran abuse, five were substantiated, of which two were most likely accidental.
Let's understand what mishandling means. Under the rules the Pentagon later instituted at Guantanamo, proper handling of the Koran means using two hands and wearing gloves when touching it. Which means that if any guard held the Koran with one hand or had neglected to put on gloves, this would be considered mishandling.
I don't know, based on your claimed worldview of relativism, it's all fine if the people doing it think so.
ReplyDeleteThe authoritative take on relativism, via The Anchoress.
ReplyDeleteWas going to muckjump into this discussion, but the above was better. I do like KeithM's reverse chickenhawk argument, tho. Salut!
Tvd, you just don't get it, do you. That's what absolutists would love for relativism to be. Wishin' don't make it so, friend. Wishin' don't make it so.
ReplyDeleteT and E, please put your cones together and give us your explanation of what relativism is and how it should apply to this situation or do it separately. I promise my rapt attention. We might even post it as a regular post and wait for the comments box to go CRAZY!!!
ReplyDeleteLook, I'll try an analogy. I'm going to trust to your intellect and not use small words, so if I leave tvd and KeithM behind, forgive me.
ReplyDeleteConsider an ancient tribe. Perhaps they are native Americans. Perhaps they are Vakhan Turks or Mongols of the steppes. It doesn't really matter. An encroaching civilization lies across the mountains. In order to beat back this civilization, they cross the mountain trails time and time again. But when they raid neighboring tribes on the plain or steppes, they never use the same route twice. The choice of paths over the plain or steppe is innumerable and endless.
Every human task, thought, and deed is like one of those journeys, with a beginning and a desired destination. All these things that men do, they are journeys. Even words and thoughts.
If all that we do is a journey, why choose the same paths - our customs that bind us - over and over again, when the routes to our destination are without number?
Because, they (and we) are told that there is One Way that is sacred and immutable, that the ways of others are fickle and degenerate. But aren't all ways just similar trails to similar destinations? What makes one way the only way? How can this be if the journey is inherent to everything man does and thinks?
A true relativist understands the sublimely subjective nature of this question, which is inherent to life.
For example: One of the most frequent critiques of relativism, found from the Pope to that idiot tvd linked to, is that relativism claims that there is no difference between man lying with woman and man lying with man. This is a simplification. A relativist looks at a world were heterosexuals prohibit homosexuals from being with those they love and says, "If I lived in a world dominated by homosexuals, I would not wish for them to prevent me from loving the woman I choose."
Relativism allows you to evaluate from more than one perspective, placing yourself in the other's subjective experience in order to better inform one's own decisions.
Think of it as the Golden Rule, Hunter: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
It was good for when we were kids. Still good now.
I'll use a kiddy version for the likes of tvd and KeithM. A wise friend of mine once summed up moral relativism thusly:
ReplyDelete"Moral relativism is the acceptance that you might be wrong."
James, has your leftism robbed you of your sense of humor entirely? The website was actually ribbing the Pope.
ReplyDeleteIn your analogy, the existence of a higher moral order, is the destination. But you assume all roads and paths lead there. Not so. Most are dead ends. Perhaps all, except for one. ;-)
(Per Tlaloc v. Beckwith, Baker, et al., implicit in your analogy is that the destination does indeed exist. Good. You have stopped arguing the ends, and all that remains is the means.)
But tolerance as you describe it, is not a virtue. It is inertia, rationalized into some sort of moral quality.
As for your kind addendum: I'm a fallibilist as well as a believer. I'm not alone. But allowing that one may be wrong, although healthy, is not grounds for the moral paralysis that characterizes the modern left--- the Pilate Syndrome---washing one's hands of everything unpleasant or morally complicated.
To do so, one, for example, must cleave to the assertion that the Gitmo prisoners are innocents rather than probable killers, past or future. This obviates the dilemma of protecting one's own while still preserving the illusion of moral rectitude.
I trust our military implicitely
ReplyDeleteAnd the truth comes out.
Our entire system of justice, the system by which we deprive others of their liberty, is predicated upon the belief that we are innocent until proven guilty. When we ask that the government be held accountable to the standards it professes to live by, how is that, in any way, a bad thing? Tlaloc has made this point repeatedly and has yet to be refuted by anything other than attempts to distract with strawmen.
ReplyDeleteKeith, your argument boils down to a series of strawmen and is seriously in danger of boring me into a catatonic state. In fact, your "Bible burning" analogy is poorly-applied moral relativism in action. Wake up.
Tvd, in fact, the destination in my analogy is no such higher moral order. That's your destination. If there is any true, final destination in the actions of man, it is to better comprehend the world he lives in.
Let's put it this way: Children question, always. It's why we have the phrase "child-like wonder." A child asks questions not just to obtain answers but to discover boundaries. What's the single most irritating question a child can ask? "Why?" Over and over again. Why is it so irritating? Because eventually we don't have an explanation for the question beyond "Just because!" Or, in your tidy little corner of the world, "God."
But then, what happens when a child asks, "Why?" To continually ask that question becomes socially unacceptable. To continually ask that question, while accidentally profound, is to move beyong all permissible social order. For when a child asks "Why?" we see the uselessness and foolishness of our customs and social prohibitions. We see them for what they are: not truths, but mad vanities and arbitrary rules, no matter how sensible.
When the paths are endless, the only sinner is he who misses his destination. This is the only time a man can stray, when the strays from HIS path. A person can choose to include custom in his path, and, by KNOWINGLY choosing that path (say, knowingly accepting that they have to take the nature of God on faith), their sincerity cannot be in doubt. Relativism isn't one path, tvd, it's knowing that there are many paths and choosing the one that's right for you. It is to travel with one's eyes wide open.
Traveling with your eyes wide open often leads to paths not often traveled by others. That can be scary. Hence the "paralysis" you observe. (I would contend that the "paralysis" is more a result of trying to resolve absolutist teachings with the revelation of relativistic nature of the world.) Relativism isn't for the faint of heart, tvd, but it is the honest way to travel. Custom, absolutism, is nothing more than an easy path, well traveled, worn by others, and so crowded that you need only stretch your arm to catch yourself on another when you stumble or falter. Unfortunately, all too often that path is trodden by the blind leading the blind, and they usually end up traveling in circles.
*That should be "beyond" and not "beyong."
ReplyDeleteJames, you've gotten all mystical on us. We can burn incense and get this thing worked out quickly.
ReplyDeleteTlaloc, you continue to ride on the objective morality sitting beneath your stated relativist morality. Why on earth should relativism apply only to individuals and not to governments or groups? What are the latter if not merely accretions of the former set up to accomplish some purpose? This is really an odd stance for a self-proclaimed anarchist.
Let's just assume that you are right that relativism is not for governments and groups who have stated other rules? Why should they follow those rules? What's doing the work here? It's your feeling (from the natural law or the creator) that agreements should be honored and the promises should be kept. Otherwise, why not accept naked self interest and not be so upset about Gitmo?
You're literally in so deep you can't see anything. James is your enabler. Co-dependency is a bad thing guys. "De Nile" "River" "Egypt" We know where this is going.
Hunter, your entire argument ignores everything Tlaloc and I have said. You argue like a fanatic. And like a fanatic, you think you own The One Truth. Zealots cling to their truths, proclaiming and waving them about. But when confronted with facts or reasoning that puts them to the lie or, more frequently, the test, the zealot ignores these facts and reasons. For him they simply cease to exist, for to acknowledge them is to deny the order his world is set upon.
ReplyDeleteIt's not mysticism, it's an analogy. In fact, I've proposed two logical analogies, neither of which was refuted. Tvd either completely misunderstood the analogy or decided to misunderstand it and attempted to jump on a single semantic ambiguity and wage his little misguided war with that. The analogy still stands, unscarred and unbent.
I think, Hunter, that what Tlaloc is doing is asking that either the government and its enablers - i.e. you - agree to actually live by the rules you claim to live by, or fess up to your hypocrisy. Since you do neither, you remain the worse kind of relativists (the unwitting kind, hiding behind a shield of absolute righteousness) and utter hypocrites.
No, the organization/person distinction is completely artificial because organizations simply have the moral codes given them by persons. Besides, you conflate your earlier analysis by breaking the dichotomy when you proclaim that an organization can be sick just like a person with a moral code.
ReplyDeleteI'm done, pally. Law of diminishing marginal returns and all that.
The coward always hides behind a jape and then leaves.
ReplyDeleteYou got your behind handed to you, man. Admit it.
James, you're hilarious. You make the mistake of conflating lack of willingness to spend hours on a comment board with a lost argument. I made my argument. Tlaloc denied that any of it made sense. You may not have the Scripture to understand this, but there's a little thing about shaking the dust off one's sandals and moving on.
ReplyDeleteNow, now, James, no war. Implicit in your analogy is that there's a destination. Then you turn around and say there is none; that the journey is its own end. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteNo one is saying accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. They are only speaking of First Things.
Your inquiry isn't as honest as you fancy it, by purposefully pursuing the purposelessness (now there's some purple prose) of the byways and remaining willfully ignorant of the highways, the way of First Things, the Tao.
(I say this not pejoratively, but because even Immanuel Kant, who inquired of First Things without an interfering deity, knew what an "ought" is.)
The beginning of that highway is admittedly well-travelled; but not one of us (maybe there was one, once) can keep from falling in the ditch, over and over.
Perhaps you'll avail yourself of the gift I intended for your soulmate (if you indeed have souls, eh?) and not be content with the appendix. I don't think there's any Jesus stuff in it, just a lot of First Things. Besides, it's free.
Peace.
The point, Hunter, was that you never refuted anything. You hid behind a jape (your mysticism comment) which is the first refuge of someone who doesn't have any ammunition in their rhetorical arsenal. The jibe and run tactic implies that you have nothing probative to add.
ReplyDeleteTvd, there was nothing implicit or implied about my analogy. There were destinations (plural), which implies a different goal for each act. For you, all acts seem to be on a path that appears to have a goal of finding some sort of greater truth or answer, a single summation. That is a fine goal. Relativism allows me to wish you well on your journey and to take an entirely different path, with different goals.
ReplyDeleteYou'll do anything to get out of reading the damn book, won't you, James? ;-)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, gentlemen, I haven't had my a$$ handed to me since I was five and a rogue German Shepherd tried to bite it off.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had my a$$ handed to me since I was five and a rogue German Shepherd tried to bite it off.
ReplyDeleteWhen I run out of patience with commenters, I just replay that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in my head:
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
OH MY DEAR HEAVEN! You are the one so deep in cognitive dissonance you are completely unable to see it. I finally understand what Chesterton meant when he said you know the insane man because he has a carefully worked answer for everything, even when it makes no sense at all!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is really, really the last try. There are two possible positions. Foundationalism and anti-foundationalism. Foundationalism holds that there is some true source of value behind our reason, morality, philosophy, etc. Anti-foundationalism declares that there is not, or that we could not know if there is because we are all captives of our own biases.
ReplyDeleteNow, which one of these are you, Tlaloc? Pick one.
Now we need a definition of truth. Please provide one so we may proceed.
ReplyDeleteI might take issue with your definition of truth, but let's go with that.
ReplyDeleteIs something like gravity true? Is it true that it rains? Is there anything about those two things that would end up falling subject to a personal truth? If someone said that it was not raining when in fact, it was, would we say that their personal truth was still intact?
This is not intended to be some kind of deathstroke, just more clarification.
I can certainly do without any warnings. You act as though I'll be shot if I dare venture into unprotected territory.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed truth is personal and not collective. We seem to have identified that truth, at least where certain physical phenomena are concerned, is not merely personal. Is that correct?
Next question. Are certain physical phenomena that we observe the only things that exist in this objective reality you admit is applicable to everyone?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if I should take a long time to respond at any point, it will just mean life crept in and I'll be back.
ReplyDeleteOkay, then we seem to be either clarifying your original position or arriving at some other position. We are all (not merely individually, but collectively) subject to the objective reality of the universe. That entails certain physical forces such as gravity and precipitation, but we are unsure what else it might entail because we may be incapable of perceiving certain other realities. Is this a correct statement of your position?
ReplyDeleteI'm having a little trouble with this after you became so annoyed with me for refusing to engage. We'll have to assume we can get somewhere with careful communication or there is no reason to communicate is there?
ReplyDeleteSo at least for now, we have an acceptable statement of your position. There is some objective reality to which we are all subject. Good examples include rain and gravity. There may be physical phenomena to which we are subject and of which we may not be aware.
ReplyDeleteNow, here's the next question. Have you ever experienced anger and if so, do you suppose we might be able to discuss anger between the two of us and agree that we are talking about essentially the same emotion?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTlaloc seems to have left the field or at least is on hiatus. I can shorten this conversation by offering this bit.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following two sentences:
1. Vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate.
2. Torturing innocent persons for fun is wrong.
If all of humankind would interpret these two statements as fundamentally different -- one expresses a preference, the other a moral truth -- then this debate is over.
They would. And so it is. (Thanks to Hadley Arkes' book First Things)
Just "torture for fun," Hunter? Have you descended into relativism?
ReplyDeletePurposefully extreme example to make a point. You get it, James. I know you do. Can't fool me that you don't. You're a smart one when you want to be.
ReplyDelete