Monday, September 04, 2006
The "Liberal" who wants to defend himself
Some of my political views, (the Bush Doctrine) my sound as if i may be a 'right-winger'. However, i have always proud to be a 'Liberal' (to use a label), and was wondering why some of my political views come accross as being 'not-so-liberal'. Well, for one, i think being a card-carrying liberal may threaten your very survival. And survival is important.
The classic liberal viewpoint is 'i do not agree with what you believe but support your right to believe it'. So far so good. However, people can believe any stupid/warped/biogoted stuff in the world. To take an extreme example, a group may believe it is perfectly ok to kill anybody who does not agree with them. This is not an argument for it's own sake. Some people may genuniely ,completely, totally believe that they have a right to exterminate anyone who does not agree with them. If you dont believe me, just flip any newspaper or TV channel and think a little. And if they action their belief, well, the non-believers are in peril.
But the liberal will say - just a cotton-picking moment - We did'nt say that people have a right to 'ACTION' on what they 'BELIEVE'. They can believe whatever they can so long it is in their thoughts and express the same peacefully but they actually do not 'carry-out' their beliefs. However, such a faith in our ability to separate thought-and-action is almost touching and naive. It can be a romantic and utopian ideal but completely out-of-touch with the reality of the world. There are flawed humans and we have to deal with them.
Moreover the clear distinction between 'thought' and 'action' is also questionable. Believing is something that we "DO" consciously. So if you are responsible for everything that you do, you have to be responsible for everything you believe. We cant shrug of responsibility here saying we did a bad job of choosing what to believe in. If there was no conscious (& rigorous) self-scrutiny of our beliefs, before we adapted them, well we ARE responsible. This is epistimic responsibility - the responsibility of what you believe. So if our beliefs are stupid/bigoted/warped beliefs, we are still responsible for them and should be stopped.
So unfortunately, we have to start blaming people for their beliefs as well as their actions. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, nor is stupidity. Or tradition. If a belief is stupid, it does not matter how many people believed it or for how long they believed it. (Remember 'Sati' in India). It is because people have stupid beliefs, we have such moral problems in the world. Some of us have just not been responsible-enough in forming those beliefs.
Herein comes my unintended 'tilt' towards the right-wingers. I believe that people who have stupid beliefs need to be stopped, else it will lead to your own annhiliation. The liberal response here seems wishy-washy and weak, not conducive to survival. When the push comes to shove, it is not time to engage in philosophical debate but to stand up and defend yourself. If that requires, in turn, stopping (and in the process exterminating) some people who hold stupid beliefs, then so be it.
The classic liberal viewpoint is 'i do not agree with what you believe but support your right to believe it'. So far so good. However, people can believe any stupid/warped/biogoted stuff in the world. To take an extreme example, a group may believe it is perfectly ok to kill anybody who does not agree with them. This is not an argument for it's own sake. Some people may genuniely ,completely, totally believe that they have a right to exterminate anyone who does not agree with them. If you dont believe me, just flip any newspaper or TV channel and think a little. And if they action their belief, well, the non-believers are in peril.
But the liberal will say - just a cotton-picking moment - We did'nt say that people have a right to 'ACTION' on what they 'BELIEVE'. They can believe whatever they can so long it is in their thoughts and express the same peacefully but they actually do not 'carry-out' their beliefs. However, such a faith in our ability to separate thought-and-action is almost touching and naive. It can be a romantic and utopian ideal but completely out-of-touch with the reality of the world. There are flawed humans and we have to deal with them.
Moreover the clear distinction between 'thought' and 'action' is also questionable. Believing is something that we "DO" consciously. So if you are responsible for everything that you do, you have to be responsible for everything you believe. We cant shrug of responsibility here saying we did a bad job of choosing what to believe in. If there was no conscious (& rigorous) self-scrutiny of our beliefs, before we adapted them, well we ARE responsible. This is epistimic responsibility - the responsibility of what you believe. So if our beliefs are stupid/bigoted/warped beliefs, we are still responsible for them and should be stopped.
So unfortunately, we have to start blaming people for their beliefs as well as their actions. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, nor is stupidity. Or tradition. If a belief is stupid, it does not matter how many people believed it or for how long they believed it. (Remember 'Sati' in India). It is because people have stupid beliefs, we have such moral problems in the world. Some of us have just not been responsible-enough in forming those beliefs.
Herein comes my unintended 'tilt' towards the right-wingers. I believe that people who have stupid beliefs need to be stopped, else it will lead to your own annhiliation. The liberal response here seems wishy-washy and weak, not conducive to survival. When the push comes to shove, it is not time to engage in philosophical debate but to stand up and defend yourself. If that requires, in turn, stopping (and in the process exterminating) some people who hold stupid beliefs, then so be it.
