Henry David Thoreau vs. Iraqi innocents
 

In his work "On Civil Disobedience" Thoreau carefully and meticulously extends the morality of the individual to include the morality of the state in which that individual participates. Where the state is engaged in an immoral activity [in Thoreau's case, slavery], any individual who does not actively disengage himself from the activities of that state, though he suffer the full wrath of the state for such disengagment, is accountable for the moral actions taken up by the state.

By extension, the ethic may be stated thus. Where a regime perpetrates morally evil acts, an individual who does not stand in opposition to that state is culpable for the acts perpetrated. This principle, though not clearly articulated, has been one of the driving motivations behind the "Not in my name" anti-war protests.

My question is this: how might this principle be extended to the Iraqi regime? It is unquestionably a reprehensible, morally evil regime which perpetrates unspeakable acts of horror upon it's own people. Are those individuals within the regime who do not stand in opposition to it morally culpable for the actions undertaken by the state they participate in?

If not, why not?
If so, how might this ammend the notion of "innnocent Iraqi civilians"?

-sm

That's really an interesting thought. [broadbrush]The philosophical problem with holding all Iraqis responsible for the acts of their leaders is that Thoreau's individualism is very much an extention of western thought. Iraqis don't take personal responsibility for the acts of their B'ath Party because in their world things happen, things are not done. [/broadbrush] I'm totally talking out my ass here but wouldn't a leader in such a society have to be unbalanced?

This creates a problem for me since I believe its up to the Iraqi people to change leaders not up to our government. I believe that in time we can subvert their system with ideas, making our own governments unjust actions unnecessary.

removing ass hat, backing slowly away

I wish the U.S. Government would have just funded and supported local Iraqi resistance movements, instead of getting directly involved themselves. It doesn't sully our reputation with the locals, and it keeps the regime change "in the family" so to speak. That way the Iraqis don't feel like we're just coming in and taking over.

Griff's broad brush point has led to some people arguing that Democracy can *never* take hold in some areas of the world, and that's what a lot of Bush's last speech was about. He does not agree with that assessment.

I don't think the Iraqi civilians can be held responsible at all. When a dictatorship is enforced by killing and torture and such, it's more like a kidnapping situation. Thoreau can't ask somebody to actually put their life on the line in such a case unless he believes in the supremacy of the state - that someone's life is worth nothing if they don't live as part of a functional government.

Just look at it this way, if you were living in Iraq would you be the first to attempt to start a revolution against Saddam??? If you can't say yes then you have no right to hold Iraq citizens responsible.

Iraqi resistance movements don't last long.

Remember, we're dealing with a country in which 100% of the people showed up to vote (presumably including people in comas in hospitals) and cast 100% of their votes for Saddam.

The conventional rules don't apply.

In my case, I believe it could take hold if it becomes part of the culture and percolates up. Imposed from above, it will just be considered another sign of Western imperialism, no matter how pure our intentions. I've been wrong before, hopefully I am now but...

Sometimes I crack myself up.

Japan.

Undertoad, isn't this always the situation within which just revolutions occur? I'm struggling to think of a situation where power wasn't wrested from an immoral dictatorship (or king, or Generalissimo, or Polituburo) that enforced their rule with pain, cruelty, and fear.

Revolution, particularly just revolution, always "waters the tree of liberty with blood". This does not alter the ethic of personal morality within a given state; it adds physical consequence to a moral decision (Apologies to Deride, and all other Post-Modern ethicists).

Give me some time to think through the second part of your comment. I don't know that Thoreau defined his philosophy as pertaining to this situation, but perhaps we can take up his tools, and forge the remaining edifice of thought.

-sm

sm, your first paragraph confuses my tired mind. By "just revolutions" do you mean "just and good revolutions", or "just revolutions, with no strings attached"?

...was a nation united behind their religious devotion to their emperor. MacArthur coopted that devotion. Iraq is rife with partisan groups united temporarily in their hatred of Hussein. Religous factions in Iraq are loyal only to their vision of Gods will, thats going to be a huge problem for any ruler.

Naw, I'm with Griff on this one; the people can revolt if they kinda understand what the situation is, if they're kinda bent that way... but that's a Western bent.

It was the 60 Minutes piece on Kim Jung Il that really got to me. The people are trained to be subservient. There isn't a revolutionary movement because the people have been whipped into such a level of ignorance and submission that Il is their God.

Take that Terry! Who's the sidekick now?

Re: Henry David Thoreau vs. Iraqi innocents
 

Thoreau was wrong. Silence is not assent, nor inaction approval.

There are so many injustices being perpetrated today -- in the US, let alone Iraq -- that no one could hope to protest them all. It is absurd to think that each injustice a person does not protest, he is responsible for.

I don't have a sidekick; I'm heterosexual.

Damn, what am I gonna do with this snappy utility belt?

*grumble grumble* damned libertarian conspiracy *grumble grumble*

This reminds me of something I was watching about WW2 on the History Channel a few weeks ago: American soldiers sweeping into Germany couldn't believe that the Germans living near concentration camps "didn't know what was going on."

When it comes to the Iraqi people, I don't think that they know any better...after all, the Ba'ath Party has controlled Iraq since 1968. No access to outside media, other than maybe sneaking BBC or VOA on shortwave. Given their limited knowledge of the world around them, I personally can't find them morally responsible for the actions of their government.

On another level, whose really to say whether our system is the best thing going? Maybe in their minds, what happens in Iraq is perfectly acceptable, and our ways would be horrible and unspeakable. The easy way to solve this is to show both sides of the picture...but each side is going to push so damned hard, it would be hard to get an unbiased presentation.

Griff, you'll just have to use it on some other guy... I'm not into this "tool time" fantasy thing, really.

What was up with the gray tights and the Batman-looking face mask I saw at your house, then?

sm, you raise an interesting question; but I don't think it can be valid in a state that isn't a democracy, or of some other form where the people (theoretically) are in charge. Here, we can be upset and refuse to involve ourselves in a myriad of social issues, on whatever side of the aisle you fall, but things aren't so cut and dry in a dictatorship.

Also, I think the discussion about democracy in the middle east is completely accurate. Democracy cannot come about from the outside; it has to be nurtured from within. Iran is heading this direction, and so is Bahrain - not through Western intervention, but by a slow process of liberalization. In fact, Bahrain just had their first real elections last October, and they are officially a constitutional monarchy like the UK.

Things were entirely different in Japan. They were a beaten people, and they knew it. They had just lost an entire generation of their soldiers fighting to extend their empire - and suddenly, they were forced back to their own islands. Complete and utter defeat, especially from such a great height, is a sobering experience that makes you realize your shortcomings. I find it hard to believe that a) our leaders will have the political balls to defeat the Iraqis the way the Japanese were and b) that the culture will allow the same usurpation that the Japanese culture did.

hermitt - I think Locke and Hobbes might argue that every state exists as a permissive democracy; the masses are either ruled by their own consent, or they "vote" by revolution. There is certainly no "divine right" being asserted by Kim or Saddam. They rule through the consent of the governed, such consent being granted by the failure to take up arms in protest.

sycamore - the ignorance of the governed makes a compelling case. They certainly do not know the extent of the evil being perpetrated. They cannot, however, fail to know that there are secret police who brutalize political opponents, or that dissenters and their families are raped and killed. It is in Saddam's interest that the fear promolgated by these actions be widespread, therefore I find it hard to believe that he would cover up these incidents. German citizens may not have known about the concentration camps, but they knew about the ghettos, and they know about the brownshirts. Surely they were morally culpable for allowing those evils to be perpetrated.

Undertoad - just revolutions as in morally justified, not as in "simply revolutions". Sorry for the lack of clarity. I tend to obfuscate my ignorance through syntactical bluster. Or, ya know, like, whatever. G2G. bye

-sm

Of course, if we decide to link democracy with assent we've just justified, at least in the mind of the terrorist, the 911 attacks on civilians. Does voting equal assent? Our voting participation numbers may have some importance.

Silence is not assent, nor inaction approval.
Russotto makes a valid point, are we to waste our lives participating in politics or throwing bombs because we had the bad luck of being born after the fall of the Republic? I don't think so, especially when the great mass of people still think we can play empire without paying a price for it.

It seems odd to be hearing discussions about a new "democratic" Iraq when looking at the US it seems we're moving farther away from a democratic state and closer to a dictatorship of sorts. Bush is making it clear that religion is going to sway his leadership. He is a very energetic speaker, albeit not an intelligent one, but he knows how to mislead the masses. Let's face it, if we don't speak up now we may one day be like Iraq, but with our "superpowers" no one will come in to liberate us.

Granted, I may sound a bit paranoid, but it's just a gut feeling I get every time someone is called anti-American for not wanting to go to war. Freedom of thought is being squashed by brain-washed followers, but it's on a peer level so as not to look like the government is perpetrating it.

As for whether the Iraqis are responsible, well, it depends on how they view Saddam. If they see him more as a religious figure or as a protector from the godless west then they are not responsible for standing up to him. Who knows, maybe there are plans to overthrow him, but would they be stupid enough to broadcast it? I hope not. But, until any of us has lived there under those conditions it is impossible to say.

Spinz, who exactly is quashing your freedom of thought? or speech? or free assembly? Do you have the names of americans who are in prison right not because they spoke out against the president? or of those who's families are under persecution because they marched in peaceful demonstrations against the new Bush doctrine of preemptive attack? Who's house has been burned to the ground by angry mobs because they dissent from the majority opinion? This is not Uganda, or the Congo, or Pakistan, or North Korea.

These rights are being used daily in this country, by millions on either side of the debate. When I reasonably, thoughtfully, and articulately disagree with your ideas and opinions, I do not deny your right to free speech, I engage it. When my carefully considered ideas and opinions are in agreement with those who are in power, do not malign my rationality and call it "lockstep". These rights and these freedoms do not promise imunity from public engagement of opposing views; they revel in it.

The day that this ceases, the day that people are imprisoned for their thoughts, their words, or their peacable assembly, and most importantly, the day that Bush stays in office one hour past his removal via free elections, and thus becomes a true dictator, I will join you in taking up arms.

Until that day, do not belittle the value of freedom by crying tyranny.

-sm

wow, Smooth, considering I wasn't even talking to you I find that a bit harsh. You seem like the this guy I know who starts stomping his feet like Rumplestiltskin cause you said something he doesn't like. I could sit here and argue with you till we're both blue in the face, but I doubt you'd listen to what I have to say. '

Oh, and thanks for the warm welcome to the board. This was all of my second post (the first being on the TMNT board). I might as well been handed my ass in a doggie bag. :(

Spinz, shrug it off and argue back, back up your arguements well and you should win some respect.
Worth wearing kevlar too, or at least a thicker hide ;)

I'm with griff on this one, silecnce is not approval. The failure of the Iraqi people to rise up does not make them morally culpable in his actions. As someone else said, i've forgotten who, unless you can truthfully say you'd stand up first to form the resistance i don't think you can take that line, even then you've got moral problems.

Yeah, I know, it just irks me sometimes that people can be that way. See, I was the kid who always sided with the underdog, always stood up for the losers (thus further cementing my reputation of being a loser). I stood up to some of the biggest bullies in school, not with facts and arguments, but with pure anger for an obvious abuse of power. But I never was bothered by them again. Why? Probably because in their gut they knew I was right. Intuition is an amazing thing, and at times I've been wrong with interpreting my feelings but not often. Take xians for example. The basis for xianity in its purest form is the most wonderful thing, but in the hands of the wrong people, well, you get my point. I'm anti-war with Iraq because I don't believe we have a reason to fight it. If push came to shove with, say, North Korea, though, I'd probably support it. But those who say that I'm anti-American for my beliefs are just plain wrong. I've been accused of that by people closest to me, and have been brow-beaten for supposedly not supporting the troops. Sad thing is I'm trying to keep what being an American is all about: my right as a citizen to have a say in how my government is run. NOT to be told what my government is going to do in spite of my disagreement, and not that my voice doesn't matter. Oh, and BUSH said that, for anyone keeping score.

But I'll stop there. If anyone really wants me to pose all my arguments then give me fair warning, I type slow. :blunt:

Spinz, I'm not picking on you. I've stated my arguments, forcefully and cogently. I'm not here to make you feel good about your opinions, I'm here to challenge them. If they are reasonable, they will stand. If they are not, then the mere holding of them grants them no intrinsic value.

What I object to is that the right of free speech is somehow abjured by those who's opinions are argued against. My engaging you in free speech does not negate your exercise thereof. My disagrement with the content of your free speech does not negate your right to express it.

Likewise, your exercise of free speech does not consecrate the content therein; your thoughts must compete in the marketplace of ideas, and must do so without the protected status of "victimized" when they encounter opposition.

Think well, speak freely. I will always and fervently defend your right to do the latter. I will always and fervently insist that you do the former.

-sm

I'm not sure your point is clear. You may want to start a new thread to illucidate it.

-sm

Jerry Falwell.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from and you're right. Unfortunately I have to go to work so I can't go into detail. My complaint was that many folks have no argument for war except that it's "patriotic" and that if you don't want war you're "anti-American". But that's why I came here, in search of intelligent discourse. Just keep it on a cool level, that's all I ask. And I'll try not to post at night after my bedtime ;)

Hobbes, apologist for authoritarianism, might; his position was that you should accept any government you have and like it, for only it stood between you and a life which was primitive, nasty, brutish and short. Somehow I can't see Locke expressing similar disingenuities.

They rule by naked force, said force being exemplified by their shooting anyone who opposes them.

I can answer this one, Syc -- I just point to how many tens of thousands of people are literally kicking our border fence down to, ah, immigrate informally, and get their piece of the American Dream. That happens almost nowhere else, not on our kind of scale. Guess they figure it's poor business practice to shell out money on fees! "Our system" should not be the exclusive property of Americans alone -- not even just of the English-speaking world. Political freedom, necessarily hand in hand with economic freedom, works for human beings of any stripe or texture of hair.

Our most prominent immigration difficulty is really Mexico's difficulty in growing a large middle class. If Mexico had a visible middle class, we wouldn't be fretting about undocumented Mexicans all over the southern tier of states. Trouble with Mexicans in Mexico is they're overtaxed by the time you add taxation to mordida. It's too large a percentage of their average per capita income. See above smartass remark on shelling out fees.

The way to deal with opposing biases, I should think, would be to kinda lean the opposing biases together and drop a plumb line -- that's going to be pretty close to the reality of an issue. Granted, this faculty is not much developed in a one-party state like Iraq or Arkansas, but that doesn't mean the learning curve is never going to have a beginning point. It just means that the steep part of the learning curve may be tumultuous.

I'd add to that I don't want people telling me I'm anti-American if I don't have a flag on my antenae or red/white/blue ribbon on my chest. Support the troops? You bet I do. The IRS makes sure of that.