On good and evil: final debate with Dr. Ola Kassim
Ola Kassim,
Thank you for your response, please. It is not only that we collectively clarify our thoughts and build bodies of knowledge through discourse, it is factual that we do as well construct our social realities, in the process. It is in this light that I welcome the continuation of this discussion with you.
Having said that, I must say that you still do not get the salient points in my argument. While I will try to avoid being repetitive, I will expound on these by engaging with your argument in its present formulation.
One of the major differences between human beings and other members
of the animal kingdom, at least according to conventional wisdom, is the ability
to separate what is good and wholesome from what is bad or evil,
even though the two are not always clear cut.
The ability which you try to grapple with above is not first that of separating, but that of defining. It is based on what is defined, and in that process of its becoming a norm that separation begins to make any sense.
My argument is that such defining moments that precede (and even drive separation) involves power plays. They could take the form of coercion, at least at inception, (as in the Alaafin being Iku baba, yeye and thus it was deemed 'good and wholesome' that he should be so revered), or negotiations. Such negotiations however do mask the fact that the different persons that come to the negotiation table do not come with equal repertoires of power (for example, accepting Hobbes state of nature=> social contract => leviathan formula for the sake of argumentation, could the person that emerged as the sovereign, through seeming 'social contract' have been anybody but the more powerful? more contemporaneously; the WTO is actually more democratic than the IMF/WB (where some six countries, wield over 60% votes), formally. But the same power structure subsists therein).
Human societies cannot survive the way we know it without the ability to separate good from evil in most instances.
Of course yes...but is there any of the "human societies...the way we know it(sic)", be it at the global, regional, national or sub-national level that is monolithic? Are "human societies" not made up of nations, institutions, social groups, etc, some being more powerful than the others? Do the more powerful social forces at any point in time, within the matrix of their collaborations as allies, or contention as foes not play the decisive role in exercising that ability which you stress and which we have shown is basically a second order ability...along with the first order of defining "good" and "evil"? If for example the social categories encompassed by whatever is defined as 'evil' had been the more powerful, do you believe that it is that which is considered as evil that would even then be evil? (a look at the history of Ibadan, with all due respect to this land of warriors in the days of yore, shows that if your goods left carelessly were 'stolen' you and not the 'thief' was to be blamed. Why? because it was (and the PDP still makes us believe, still is) a garrison of warriors and warlords and plunder and pillage of course are the makings of the spoils of war).
I looked up the word piracy on the my online dictionary so that we may begin on the same wave length.
This takes us back to the position I made in my earlier posting that 'separating', to use your word here please, the concepts of good and bad from space and time as eternal variables makes nonsense of them. This could actually go for a broad spectrum of words, because, they signify the mental constructs we make of our lived realities. It is quite likely in my opinion that if you wee to take an 18th Century dictionary, it might not so describe 'pirate'. Even if it asserts that they robbed at sea, the wave lengths it would generate would be of a different lamda...because of the different circumstances then of 'piracy'. It is also noteworthy that the 3rd category which obviously does not fit into your line of argumentation is added. t would not have appeared in a dictionary published before 'intellectual property' entered social discourse as 'good'. Even though 'production, invention and conception' must have existed as long as hum society, 'copyright' had first to be so defined before it could be considered 'bad' or 'evil' to infringe on it. The definition and not the separation made it real, made that form of piracy to come to exist.
Simple justification in this instance
would be nothing more than rationalization. I was particularly interested in the issues of moral justification, not rationalization.
I want to believe that you mean 'rationalization' in a psychological sense, because that word actually throws up more ambiguities than 'moral justification' and 'justification'. But sir, what is morality itself but the rationalization of norms, a socialized rationalization so to speak? I will give an example with bearing on one of the issues where the pious stress morality the most; sex. In Brazil, there are four possible ways of being a lover, all of which except the last (cassado/cassada: married) can be expressed simultaneously with different persons. A man or woman could be inamorada/o with someone (i.e. sleeps with her or him) and have people s/he has a ficar relation with (i.e. French kissing) and such deep kisses would be done in public with the inamorado/a right there by the lover's side and it means nothing (it has been socially rationalized as merely showing affection...the way you could see a hug). But if a man (and worse still a woman....this is also part of the power relations in defining good and bad and their degrees), were to be with his (her) beloved and s/he kisses some one else in Nigeria, would that not be considered the height of immorality? But does that make us better morally (or let's say more "good") than the Brazilian? NO.
Regardless of the sins that were perpetrated by the west against developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, the world still needs to operate on some basic
rules of engagement many of which keep institutions like the UN continuously busy.
If it was a case of 'were perpetrated' it would have been better, it is that such sins, even if with a different absentee style, is still being perpetuated....and a Somalia is the reaping of the whirlwind of the wind of such sins. Talking of the UN's business, would you not think Fela's "who and who, unite for United Nations" has more than a grain of truth in it? When America can not, as usual, muzzle its way through the UN does it not summon, as it did for Iraq, what a Canadian legislator described as a 'coalition of the idiots' as seeming multilateral stamp for its defining hegemony?
Somali are thugs, ruffians and murderers who are taking advantage of the chaos in their country to make some quick bucks.
Now let's stick with facts here. First, a robber (without even counting the 'authority stealing' robbers in) does not have to be a thug or ruffian. One of the tragedies of our time is that due to worsening unemployment rates for even graduates, we now have more urbane, polished....and more dangerous, robbers. Second, all fact and figures (including your subsequent position below that they released the hostages they took) make the assertion of their being murderers, very enthusiastic, but none the less a figment of your imagination.
Please do not be deceived about any alternative explanations being peddled by some bloggers. The Somali pirates are not there to prevent dumping of nuclear
waste
Now, why should I agree that the views of independent bloggers amounts to deception while the spin doctors of WMD in Iraq are the ones now telling me the truth? Could you as well avail me with the views of other independent bloggers to the contrary, which with facts and figures, evidence, could convince me otherwise (I actually do respect superior logic when I see one), after making my own personal judgments based on the evidence before me as the gentlemen and ladies of the wig would say?
I must also say that the position you present here is quite akin to that of the Niger Delta. And what I say to that is usually: yes, there is a strain of criminalization in the mosaic of resistance, but show me any movement for resistance, any collectively disruptive moment in history on that scale, which did not have its own were ile (domestic lunatic).
To justify the actions of the Somali pirates on whatever basis, is to also justify the 9/11 attacks and similar terrorist acts against the USA and some other western countries.
I want to say first here that I stand against terrorism of both the individual and of the state. In this light, I was and I am against the acts of 9/11 . But how, if I may ask, does justifying the actions of the Somali pirates (which I have never done, as I will come to) necessarily add up to justifying 9/11? Does this not amount to (a)intellectual terrorism (in the absence of logic, whip up the terror of 9/11 sentiments as a rod!)? But sentiments aside, and the spectacular dimensions of 9/11 notwithstanding; 2, 974 persons were killed on that day. That is less than the number of people that die every hour of every day (>100,000 per day), in every week, of every month, yearly (36, million yearly). The larger proportion of these hapless souls being Africans and a major cause of these pitiable state being the anti-people social and economic policies which the West has not only defined as 'good' but on the basis of which we have separated as their hewers of wood and fetchers of water. Or should we look at the earlier 9/11 of 1973, where America instigated terrorism against the sitting Government of Salvador Allende, in the equally sovereign state of Chile? America (with the same 'International Thief, Thief') then installed a military dictatorship that killed more people than were killed on 9/11, 2001? Are the above more 'morally justifiable' than the 'sea robberies' of Somali teenagers?
One can condemn the deadly attacks by Al Qaeda while still sympathizing with their cause, just as one can also condemn the piracy off the Somali coast while still sympathizing with what they are going through.
Here you totally miss the point. It is neither about condemning or sympathizing. And this is why as I said earlier I would challenge anybody to point out where and when I did give the Somali pirates a pat on the back. My position has always been that it is not for us to laugh or to cry, but to understand the dynamics, the logic, the history, the causes of what is happening for us not only to be able to engage with the present situation but as a basis for lessons towards moving our collective humanity forward.
In touching on Al Qaeda however, you take me back to my earlier posting. The US made Bin Laden, just as they helped Siad Barre to unmake Somalia. To that extent they are culpable, probably more culpable than the pawns on this chess sea of power that we are concentrating all our mental fire powers on. Without mobilizing against such powers of the US with which it could anoint Frankensteins that also now turn on it, no amount of sermonizing, condemnations or sympathy will stop more Somalias and Afghanistans from sprouting up across the globe.
The USA has committed and still commits untold criminal
acts throughout the world. however, that does not mean that20we should condone atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners.
I am happy that you objectively noted the above. My question is, how many of such 'criminal acts' of the US has those now condemning the Somali pirates condemned? More importantly, why are we being specific only about 'atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners'? I would want to believe that is not a Freudian slip implying it is okay for those boys to kill non-americans and non-westerners?
On a parting note here, I do believe that at this juncture the need for more concerted efforts at re-building Somalia, is not only palpable, it is probably the way forward in the immediate instance. If the life of the average Somali youth is still as hopeless as it is now, for some time, he would rather die trying to beat whatever military measures the west puts in place (or even get wiser at evading some of them). Those amongst them fired as well by ideals would rather go back to the drawing board to reconsider how to wage their struggle...and it could result in more heinous tactics than what presently some might be condemning or sympathizing with.
My regards,
Baba Aye
_____________________________________________________________________________________
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, ola kassim wrote
Baba Aye:
Thanks for your well articulated response even though we remain
at the extreme ends on this particular issue of Somali pirates
seizing ships at gunpoint and holding the crews and passengers
hostage.
One of the major differences between human beings and other members
of the animal kingdom, at least according to conventional wisdom, is the ability
to separate what is good and wholesome from what is bad or evil,
even though the two are not always clear cut.
Human societies cannot survive the way we know it without the ability to separate good from evil in most instances.
I looked up the word piracy on the my online dictionary so that we may begin on the same wave length.
I came up with following definitions
1) an act of robbery on the high seas also an act resembling such robbery
2) robbery on the high seas
3) a) the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception
especially in infringement of a copyright
b)the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
I will now proceed on the basis that we both agree that what we are dealing with
has bearing on the first two definitions.
Almost every atrocity done by any group of human beings against another can
be justified (as opposed to being morally justified) by competing versions of ancient or modern history..
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians can readily justify the atrocities they have been perpetrating on each
other's nationals based on their own versions of history. The thorny and ethical question will always remain
whether their actions are morally justified as opposed to being simply justified.
Simple justification in this instance
would be nothing more than rationalization. I was particularly interested in the issues of moral justification, not rationalization.
the supporters of the Somali pirates are engaging in rationalization, either conscious or subconscious.
Regardless of the sins that were perpetrated by the west against developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, the world still needs to operate on some basic
rules of engagement many of which keep institutions like the UN continuously busy.
The end does not always justify the means. The pirates operating off the coast of
Somali are thugs, ruffians and murderers who are taking advantage of the chaos in their country to make some quick bucks.
Please do not be deceived about any alternative explanations being peddled by some bloggers. The Somali pirates are not there to prevent dumping of nuclear
waste. If they were, they wouldn’t have been releasing the ships and the hostages, after they are paid millions of dollars in ransom money.
To justify the actions of the Somali pirates on whatever basis, is to also justify the 9/11 attacks and similar terrorist acts against the USA and some other western countries.
One can condemn the deadly attacks by Al Queeda while still sympathizing with their cause, just as one can also condemn the piracy off the Somali coast while still sympathizing with what they are going through.
Just imagine, if the Somali pirates had the wherewithal to do to what they are doing to ocean going freightliners and passenger ships to commercial passengers aircrafts flying close to the Somali borders. Imagine what chaos
that would cause to international passenger traffic. I can only hope that every time, you fly that you reminisce about the good old days when we did not have to cope with tight airport security details as we do today.
Even though the differences between good and bad can be blurry on some occasions I would like to respectfully submit that tjhis is not one of those instances. The USA has committed and still commits untold criminal
acts throughout the world. however, that does not mean that20we should condone atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners.
Anyone can buy ti ckets on any of the cruise ships operating off the Somali coast. Would you still be singing the same song if any of your clsoe relatives were taken hostage on one
of those cruise ships?
Bye,
Ola
Thank you for your response, please. It is not only that we collectively clarify our thoughts and build bodies of knowledge through discourse, it is factual that we do as well construct our social realities, in the process. It is in this light that I welcome the continuation of this discussion with you.
Having said that, I must say that you still do not get the salient points in my argument. While I will try to avoid being repetitive, I will expound on these by engaging with your argument in its present formulation.
One of the major differences between human beings and other members
of the animal kingdom, at least according to conventional wisdom, is the ability
to separate what is good and wholesome from what is bad or evil,
even though the two are not always clear cut.
The ability which you try to grapple with above is not first that of separating, but that of defining. It is based on what is defined, and in that process of its becoming a norm that separation begins to make any sense.
My argument is that such defining moments that precede (and even drive separation) involves power plays. They could take the form of coercion, at least at inception, (as in the Alaafin being Iku baba, yeye and thus it was deemed 'good and wholesome' that he should be so revered), or negotiations. Such negotiations however do mask the fact that the different persons that come to the negotiation table do not come with equal repertoires of power (for example, accepting Hobbes state of nature=> social contract => leviathan formula for the sake of argumentation, could the person that emerged as the sovereign, through seeming 'social contract' have been anybody but the more powerful? more contemporaneously; the WTO is actually more democratic than the IMF/WB (where some six countries, wield over 60% votes), formally. But the same power structure subsists therein).
Human societies cannot survive the way we know it without the ability to separate good from evil in most instances.
Of course yes...but is there any of the "human societies...the way we know it(sic)", be it at the global, regional, national or sub-national level that is monolithic? Are "human societies" not made up of nations, institutions, social groups, etc, some being more powerful than the others? Do the more powerful social forces at any point in time, within the matrix of their collaborations as allies, or contention as foes not play the decisive role in exercising that ability which you stress and which we have shown is basically a second order ability...along with the first order of defining "good" and "evil"? If for example the social categories encompassed by whatever is defined as 'evil' had been the more powerful, do you believe that it is that which is considered as evil that would even then be evil? (a look at the history of Ibadan, with all due respect to this land of warriors in the days of yore, shows that if your goods left carelessly were 'stolen' you and not the 'thief' was to be blamed. Why? because it was (and the PDP still makes us believe, still is) a garrison of warriors and warlords and plunder and pillage of course are the makings of the spoils of war).
I looked up the word piracy on the my online dictionary so that we may begin on the same wave length.
This takes us back to the position I made in my earlier posting that 'separating', to use your word here please, the concepts of good and bad from space and time as eternal variables makes nonsense of them. This could actually go for a broad spectrum of words, because, they signify the mental constructs we make of our lived realities. It is quite likely in my opinion that if you wee to take an 18th Century dictionary, it might not so describe 'pirate'. Even if it asserts that they robbed at sea, the wave lengths it would generate would be of a different lamda...because of the different circumstances then of 'piracy'. It is also noteworthy that the 3rd category which obviously does not fit into your line of argumentation is added. t would not have appeared in a dictionary published before 'intellectual property' entered social discourse as 'good'. Even though 'production, invention and conception' must have existed as long as hum society, 'copyright' had first to be so defined before it could be considered 'bad' or 'evil' to infringe on it. The definition and not the separation made it real, made that form of piracy to come to exist.
Simple justification in this instance
would be nothing more than rationalization. I was particularly interested in the issues of moral justification, not rationalization.
I want to believe that you mean 'rationalization' in a psychological sense, because that word actually throws up more ambiguities than 'moral justification' and 'justification'. But sir, what is morality itself but the rationalization of norms, a socialized rationalization so to speak? I will give an example with bearing on one of the issues where the pious stress morality the most; sex. In Brazil, there are four possible ways of being a lover, all of which except the last (cassado/cassada: married) can be expressed simultaneously with different persons. A man or woman could be inamorada/o with someone (i.e. sleeps with her or him) and have people s/he has a ficar relation with (i.e. French kissing) and such deep kisses would be done in public with the inamorado/a right there by the lover's side and it means nothing (it has been socially rationalized as merely showing affection...the way you could see a hug). But if a man (and worse still a woman....this is also part of the power relations in defining good and bad and their degrees), were to be with his (her) beloved and s/he kisses some one else in Nigeria, would that not be considered the height of immorality? But does that make us better morally (or let's say more "good") than the Brazilian? NO.
Regardless of the sins that were perpetrated by the west against developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, the world still needs to operate on some basic
rules of engagement many of which keep institutions like the UN continuously busy.
If it was a case of 'were perpetrated' it would have been better, it is that such sins, even if with a different absentee style, is still being perpetuated....and a Somalia is the reaping of the whirlwind of the wind of such sins. Talking of the UN's business, would you not think Fela's "who and who, unite for United Nations" has more than a grain of truth in it? When America can not, as usual, muzzle its way through the UN does it not summon, as it did for Iraq, what a Canadian legislator described as a 'coalition of the idiots' as seeming multilateral stamp for its defining hegemony?
Somali are thugs, ruffians and murderers who are taking advantage of the chaos in their country to make some quick bucks.
Now let's stick with facts here. First, a robber (without even counting the 'authority stealing' robbers in) does not have to be a thug or ruffian. One of the tragedies of our time is that due to worsening unemployment rates for even graduates, we now have more urbane, polished....and more dangerous, robbers. Second, all fact and figures (including your subsequent position below that they released the hostages they took) make the assertion of their being murderers, very enthusiastic, but none the less a figment of your imagination.
Please do not be deceived about any alternative explanations being peddled by some bloggers. The Somali pirates are not there to prevent dumping of nuclear
waste
Now, why should I agree that the views of independent bloggers amounts to deception while the spin doctors of WMD in Iraq are the ones now telling me the truth? Could you as well avail me with the views of other independent bloggers to the contrary, which with facts and figures, evidence, could convince me otherwise (I actually do respect superior logic when I see one), after making my own personal judgments based on the evidence before me as the gentlemen and ladies of the wig would say?
I must also say that the position you present here is quite akin to that of the Niger Delta. And what I say to that is usually: yes, there is a strain of criminalization in the mosaic of resistance, but show me any movement for resistance, any collectively disruptive moment in history on that scale, which did not have its own were ile (domestic lunatic).
To justify the actions of the Somali pirates on whatever basis, is to also justify the 9/11 attacks and similar terrorist acts against the USA and some other western countries.
I want to say first here that I stand against terrorism of both the individual and of the state. In this light, I was and I am against the acts of 9/11 . But how, if I may ask, does justifying the actions of the Somali pirates (which I have never done, as I will come to) necessarily add up to justifying 9/11? Does this not amount to (a)intellectual terrorism (in the absence of logic, whip up the terror of 9/11 sentiments as a rod!)? But sentiments aside, and the spectacular dimensions of 9/11 notwithstanding; 2, 974 persons were killed on that day. That is less than the number of people that die every hour of every day (>100,000 per day), in every week, of every month, yearly (36, million yearly). The larger proportion of these hapless souls being Africans and a major cause of these pitiable state being the anti-people social and economic policies which the West has not only defined as 'good' but on the basis of which we have separated as their hewers of wood and fetchers of water. Or should we look at the earlier 9/11 of 1973, where America instigated terrorism against the sitting Government of Salvador Allende, in the equally sovereign state of Chile? America (with the same 'International Thief, Thief') then installed a military dictatorship that killed more people than were killed on 9/11, 2001? Are the above more 'morally justifiable' than the 'sea robberies' of Somali teenagers?
One can condemn the deadly attacks by Al Qaeda while still sympathizing with their cause, just as one can also condemn the piracy off the Somali coast while still sympathizing with what they are going through.
Here you totally miss the point. It is neither about condemning or sympathizing. And this is why as I said earlier I would challenge anybody to point out where and when I did give the Somali pirates a pat on the back. My position has always been that it is not for us to laugh or to cry, but to understand the dynamics, the logic, the history, the causes of what is happening for us not only to be able to engage with the present situation but as a basis for lessons towards moving our collective humanity forward.
In touching on Al Qaeda however, you take me back to my earlier posting. The US made Bin Laden, just as they helped Siad Barre to unmake Somalia. To that extent they are culpable, probably more culpable than the pawns on this chess sea of power that we are concentrating all our mental fire powers on. Without mobilizing against such powers of the US with which it could anoint Frankensteins that also now turn on it, no amount of sermonizing, condemnations or sympathy will stop more Somalias and Afghanistans from sprouting up across the globe.
The USA has committed and still commits untold criminal
acts throughout the world. however, that does not mean that20we should condone atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners.
I am happy that you objectively noted the above. My question is, how many of such 'criminal acts' of the US has those now condemning the Somali pirates condemned? More importantly, why are we being specific only about 'atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners'? I would want to believe that is not a Freudian slip implying it is okay for those boys to kill non-americans and non-westerners?
On a parting note here, I do believe that at this juncture the need for more concerted efforts at re-building Somalia, is not only palpable, it is probably the way forward in the immediate instance. If the life of the average Somali youth is still as hopeless as it is now, for some time, he would rather die trying to beat whatever military measures the west puts in place (or even get wiser at evading some of them). Those amongst them fired as well by ideals would rather go back to the drawing board to reconsider how to wage their struggle...and it could result in more heinous tactics than what presently some might be condemning or sympathizing with.
My regards,
Baba Aye
_____________________________________________________________________________________
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, ola kassim wrote
Baba Aye:
Thanks for your well articulated response even though we remain
at the extreme ends on this particular issue of Somali pirates
seizing ships at gunpoint and holding the crews and passengers
hostage.
One of the major differences between human beings and other members
of the animal kingdom, at least according to conventional wisdom, is the ability
to separate what is good and wholesome from what is bad or evil,
even though the two are not always clear cut.
Human societies cannot survive the way we know it without the ability to separate good from evil in most instances.
I looked up the word piracy on the my online dictionary so that we may begin on the same wave length.
I came up with following definitions
1) an act of robbery on the high seas also an act resembling such robbery
2) robbery on the high seas
3) a) the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception
especially in infringement of a copyright
b)the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
I will now proceed on the basis that we both agree that what we are dealing with
has bearing on the first two definitions.
Almost every atrocity done by any group of human beings against another can
be justified (as opposed to being morally justified) by competing versions of ancient or modern history..
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians can readily justify the atrocities they have been perpetrating on each
other's nationals based on their own versions of history. The thorny and ethical question will always remain
whether their actions are morally justified as opposed to being simply justified.
Simple justification in this instance
would be nothing more than rationalization. I was particularly interested in the issues of moral justification, not rationalization.
the supporters of the Somali pirates are engaging in rationalization, either conscious or subconscious.
Regardless of the sins that were perpetrated by the west against developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, the world still needs to operate on some basic
rules of engagement many of which keep institutions like the UN continuously busy.
The end does not always justify the means. The pirates operating off the coast of
Somali are thugs, ruffians and murderers who are taking advantage of the chaos in their country to make some quick bucks.
Please do not be deceived about any alternative explanations being peddled by some bloggers. The Somali pirates are not there to prevent dumping of nuclear
waste. If they were, they wouldn’t have been releasing the ships and the hostages, after they are paid millions of dollars in ransom money.
To justify the actions of the Somali pirates on whatever basis, is to also justify the 9/11 attacks and similar terrorist acts against the USA and some other western countries.
One can condemn the deadly attacks by Al Queeda while still sympathizing with their cause, just as one can also condemn the piracy off the Somali coast while still sympathizing with what they are going through.
Just imagine, if the Somali pirates had the wherewithal to do to what they are doing to ocean going freightliners and passenger ships to commercial passengers aircrafts flying close to the Somali borders. Imagine what chaos
that would cause to international passenger traffic. I can only hope that every time, you fly that you reminisce about the good old days when we did not have to cope with tight airport security details as we do today.
Even though the differences between good and bad can be blurry on some occasions I would like to respectfully submit that tjhis is not one of those instances. The USA has committed and still commits untold criminal
acts throughout the world. however, that does not mean that20we should condone atrocities that are perpetrated against american citizens and other westerners.
Anyone can buy ti ckets on any of the cruise ships operating off the Somali coast. Would you still be singing the same song if any of your clsoe relatives were taken hostage on one
of those cruise ships?
Bye,
Ola
Comments