Thursday, January 26, 2006

Democracy Wins In Palestine

I don’t understand why G.W. Bush says he will not deal with Hamas despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people of Palestine have democratically elected Hamas leaders to power. Bush argues that unless Hamas gives up its agenda of destroying Israel, the United States will not engage in any dealings with the new government. But I see no reason why Bush holds this position! The people of Palestine have spoken their will through this election, in effect saying that “we the people of Palestine agree and support Hamas in their contention that Israel is an enemy and a threat that must be destroyed.” If morality is that which a majority or plurality of people say it is, then in a society of Islamic fundamentalists, being a freethinking, atheist individualist should be completely immoral. The Palestinian agenda to destroy Israel is perfectly moral because it is what its people want. Intellectuals who argue social and political theories based on “reasonable pluralism” within a society or what is practically expedient and acceptable to the majority of the people should be quite pleased with the election results in Palestine. The Utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number has borne fruition in the democratic voices of more than 75% of Palestinians who chose Hamas as their representatives. Some might argue that it is not utilitarian because Hamas, as an organization that undisputedly practices terror tactics, is not good for the greatest number – harmful for other countries and the whole world. But a quick response to that would be: well, it’s only a matter of time. If the standard of the “good” is merely a numbers game, then I suppose we could always wait for Hamas to increase its numbers of allegiance and gain support from other terror-supporting nations. Once we reach a majoritarian situation of more countries under dictatorships, tyrannies, and fundamentalists, then we can proudly sing the praises of Utilitarian morality. Or, let’s discard Utilitarianism and accept morality as derived from Divine Revelation, or some such thing. Well, again, it’s only a matter of time before the Muslims either convert all Christians to Islam or just blow up the one’s that don’t, and establish the authority of Islamic morality in the world. Or, even better, let’s discard all these collectivist moralities; let us be progressive in our thinking and allow for greater tolerance and acceptance of diverse, cultural moralities. There are different people from different cultures, from different backgrounds, from different mind-sets, and hence their concept of right and wrong is different from ours. Each individual has his own sense of right and wrong. Let’s be tolerant of them all and let morality be subjective - promiscuous. Well, then my original question arises again: Why doesn’t Bush accept the authority of Hamas and their subjectively moral agenda of destroying Israel? Also, why are we at war with terrorism? What we condemn as terrorism is infact benevolent martyrdom. It is the ultimate, supremely moral sacrifice of one’s life to one’s personal convictions. It is immoral to wage a war against those who sacrifice their lives for a cause that they so ardently believe and hold on to. Actually, here is the ultimate truth: There is no morality. It is a meaningless construct.


Blogger innommable said...

Oh! Hey!

Yeah, I thought the first line was a bit odd, but then I read the whole thing and I got the irony

So what've you been up to? I've just been workin' and spending time with Pootie.

1/26/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

Oh nuthin' special here. Just chillin'. I've been readin a lot, attendin classes on Plato and shit... just the usual fun stuff.

1/26/2006 04:10:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

Hmmm... I guess I must clarify this post. For those of you not familiar with me or have not read the bulk of my other posts on this blog, I want to say that this post is entirely in sarcasm - I am ridiculing the popular notion of Democracy, of religion-based morality... I am attacking philosophies of utilitarianism, subjectivism, pluralism, and multiculturalism... I am pointing out the farce in a culture of meaningless constructs... and the inconsistencies that leads to.

The reason I decided to make this explicitly clear is because for those linking directly to this page, I do not even want to give an inkling of an impression that I support any of the above positions.

1/27/2006 11:17:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home