अनिल एकलव्य ⇔ Anil Eklavya

February 10, 2013

Moral Questions of the 21st Century

Filed under: Uncategorized — anileklavya @ 12:53 am
  • Is it better to kidnap someone we don’t like, torture him, put him in a prison without trial indefinitely till he kills himself, or is it better to just send a drone (or use an old style missile) to kill him without any torture, prison and trial?
  • Is it better to have a faux trial and send someone to life in prison (or to the death row), or is it better to first entrap him (FBI style) and then have a proper but strict trial to accomplish the same thing?
  • Is it better to have a faux trial to accomplish the above purpose, or is it better to have a somewhat fairer trial, with the judge acknowledging that the guilt is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt, but still send the accused to life in prison (or to the death row) on the grounds of satisfying the collective conscience or the society? The conscience that calls for revenge. On someone. Or the other.
  • It is better to kill with a quick strike someone we consider an enemy or is it better to do it in slow motion, so that it is easier to ignore the fact that an execution is taking place? (In some cases, of course, an execution might rightly warrant a virtuous celebration).
  • It is better to have death penalty, or is it better to have life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?
  • Is it better to kill someone directly, or is it better to make the person do it himself or herself?
  • How many lives of the ones we don’t like are worth the same as the life of one of our own? Is it 100? 1000? 1 million?
  • Is it better to cover up our collective crimes against humanity (and smaller crimes against other humans: the ones we don’t like), or is it better to make the whole thing legal (with a decree or an executive order, as was the practice in the 30s and 40s of the 20th century in certain parts of Europe) to strike fear in the hearts of our adversaries?
  • Should we still discuss the issues of privacy, civil rights etc., or should we subscribe to a new doctrine that is more in line with the facts on the ground, i.e., that there is no privacy any more and civil rights are an obsolete idea?
  • Should we not modify the our conception of these ideas (privacy, civil rights) to make them less dogmatic and more pragmatic, that is, in line with the ideas of tactical/strategic interests?
  • Should we get the help of some creative people to justify the rationale behind our policy of creating more terrorism though our counter-terrorism efforts?
  • Is there something really wrong with Imperialism, Colonialism, Oligarchy, Plutocracy and Modern Feudalism? Why should we shy away from boldly defending them, instead of trying to answer for them apologetically, thus conceding the moral high ground to our adversaries?
  • What is wrong with a lie that is accepted by the majority of the population? Is that not a democratic vindication for the value of the lie?
  • What is wrong with a Fascist if he is an enthusiastic supporter of corporate sponsored development, even if he was involved in a genocide? Why should we have to be on the defensive about such an able and valuable person? At worst, his coming to power might lead to a Great War, that, as we know, can lead to economic regeneration and economic miracles?
  • Should we not make a clear distinction between the penetrative-sexual-assault-without-consent that is undertaken by brave men who care for our security and the brutal rape that is perpetrated by other people?
  • Should we also not make a similar distinction between the youthful mistakes of our worthy, happy, healthy sons from the above mentioned rapes?
  • How should we counter the attempts of some to mix up the issue of rape with that of enhanced interrogation techniques?
  • Is the dichotomy of torture and summary killing a false one? Can they not be complimentary? What is morally wrong with that?
  • Has not the idea of morality itself become obsolete in the 21st century? Should that not be replaced (formally and officially) by the idea of tactical/strategic interests? Can the idea of Professional Ethics (as per decrees and executive orders that are subject to change as often and as frequently as needed, without prior notice) work as a compromise solution to this thorny question, as many among us are still hung up on that morality thing?
  • What is this fuss about morality and ethics and legality anyway? Isn’t it just enough to say Good Morning, Good Evening, Hi, Bye and Happy Festival to each other and let the Free Market take care of the rest? (Apart from the Security Considerations and Strategic Interests, of course.).

[Work-in-progress: Subject to additions and modifications.]

 

***

 

Court: Gov’t Can Secretly Obtain Email, Twitter Info from Ex-WikiLeaks Volunteer Jacob Appelbaum

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of “Systematic Assault on Constitution”

Daniel Ellsberg and Jacob Appelbaum on the NDAA, WikiLeaks and Unconstitutional Surveillance

 

***

 

Mumia Abu-Jamal: “The United States Is Fast Becoming One of the Biggest Open-Air Prisons on Earth”

“Long Distance Revolutionary”: Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Journey from Black Panthers to Prison Journalist

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: