A random post about ethics

Guest bloggers over at Adam Serwer's place, making a lot of sense on how not OK both torture and the clamor for a dead man's picture are.

In not entirely unrelated news, a couple of interesting finds, courtesy of my brother. The first is from the Harvard Business School, and discusses a new books that explores the blind spots in our ethical reasoning -- why we often fail to act  in accordance with our ethical ideals, and why we tend to think we are more ethical than we actually are. The article also references a book on biased judgment in sports  and how it means that that one umpire really does have it in for the Saints. OK, that's not what it says, but it does suggest that referees are likely to unconsciously favor the home team. Combine these two, and you get, among other things, a fancy explanation of why I only care that the ref is totally biased when he's biased against my team, as opposed to all the time.

The second rec. is about a different type of bias: homophily (love of the same), or the tendency to make a bunch of friends who are pretty much just like you. That is, of course, a very loose and flippant definition of the term used to discuss things ranging from why black people tend to have mostly black friends to why you're shocked when you find out that one of your close friends does not share your opinion on something you really value. The author threw a party and, shocked by how white it was, set out to make new black friends. Some interesting things in there, from the specific project of making new friends, to the larger societal trend he sees his tendency towards "monoculture" as a reflection of.

Not surprisingly, I find this set of articles interesting. Not at all shocking, but interesting to look at, and especially interesting to look at together. Yes, I do believe that our willingness to condone torture "under the right circumstances" is directly tied to our ability to overlook our own principles when it suits us, sometimes consciously, sometimes less so. I also think that our tendency to prefer those we consider "like us" works in larger (world politics) and smaller (dinner party) ways to make us more likely to overlook, mistreat, or avoid those who are "not like us." Some will say that the answer to that problem is improving our capacity for empathy by developing the ability to see how "like us" all those others are, but I'm not always sure about that. I think that's obviously part of the problem. But at what point do we talk about how to include those who we really do see as different (sometimes for legitimate reasons) in our empathic considerations?

Too much for the wall (part 2)

A friend posted about wanting to celebrate the sense of hope that Bin Laden's death brings, rather than his death itself. I replied that I don't see his death as bringing hope, though I can see relief and temporary vindication. She replied that this is less about the pragmatic effect on day to day terrorism and more about the way 9/11 made us feel less safe in the world, and the way that finding and killing Bin Laden is a story about us regaining power. "Human belief shapes the world, and this, I think, helps us believe that we can overcome this type of threat," wrote my friend.

This one had a lot of potential for walljacking, and for the misunderstanding of tone, so I say again: the response that I will not post there would have read something like this.

Again, I hear you. And I think my discomfort comes less from the practical (I'm presuming no one is deluded about that) and more from exactly the type of narrative power you're talking about -- it is, after all, what I think about for a living. I think you're right that this story is about reclaiming a sense of power, but I really don't think the thing to do with that sense of reclaimed power is to gloat, which is what this feels like. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I doubt that the average celebrant has reflected on what this means as much as you have. This may be related to comments like "Obama's probably mad that we killed his cousin," but I have a hard time ascribing that level of thought more generally. I also have a hard
time believing that it's a good idea to give all the terrorists left -- and all those who maybe weren't sure whether or not to hate us -- images of what looks an awful lot like American disregard for Muslim lives, of glee in the face of the loss of life, of jingoistic gloating and celebration that expresses far less reflection than they'd see on your wall. Because what we learned the hard way on 9/11 is that *those* beliefs and stories also shape the world. What we do will be recounted. 

That said, I hope those who needed catharsis got it. I hope those who felt threatened feel safer. And I hope those who lost someone in *any* of Al Qaeda's attacks, or in the decade of violence that the 9/11 attacks were used to justify feel some small measure of closure.

Thou shalt not start a comment war on someone else's wall

Not surprisingly, the announcement of Bin Laden's death has brought out some ignorance.

So, to get this straight, Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist sent to infiltrate and destoy. And All Muslims are related -- OMG, SO FUNNY! And Christianity is only love and peace, while Islam is only death to non-believers. And the God of Abraham that Muslims worship is a different God of Abraham than the one in the Judeo-Christian tradition. (And only the uneducated are religious, but let me just pick one fight at a time.)

*sigh*

So, the comment that I will not leave there would have said something like the following:

The Bible says a lot of things, ranging from "an eye for an eye" to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Christians preach a lot of things, from love, peace, and intellectual inquisitiveness to hate, violence, and bigoted small mindedness. What the text says, what people interpret from that, what they preach, and what they practice are often a far cry from consistent. 

Totally consistent? The claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can all be understood to worship the same deity. The differences in their interpretations are just as important as the similarities, but that doesn't make it different gods, just different believers. 

And Muslims don't preach death to all non-believers any more consistently than Christians do. Some do, many don't. Some mean that literally, many don't. 

 Also? STFU.