I saw Romeo Dallaire speak last month in Halifax but have studied the Rwandan genocide before. This is truly something that speaks to the cowardice and ineffectivness of the UN system in some cases, but more importantly speaks to the nature of human rights.
Declaring all humans equal means that there is a duty beyond state borders, and beyond measures of citizenship, and beyond ethnicity or culture to ensure that those rights are upheld.
I'm not saying human beings are not inherently equal. If anything, I believe that we are all capable of equally different and important things. From my own experience I know that given the opportunity, different people can succeed.
What I am saying is that if we truly buy into the theory of human rights, and all the facile rhetoric of the UN on human rights, then it requires a large shift away from our current modes of government. Human rights leap across boundaries of the state, and so must the ways we can enforce them.
As it stands, only citizens are guaranteed rights in a country; provided that said country has any constitutional or charter rights in the first place. But if human rights are guaranteed to folks because they are human, then what is the difference between a citizen and a human? Citizens have human rights, but non-citizens don't even though they are obviously still human.
You can say this is because the state's power and jurisdiction only matters over a certain area of land, making their laws only affect so many people; but with human rights a claim is made further than law can grasp, and you can see just how ineffective 'law' and the 'state' is. All that is needed to 'legally' torture someone is to make them not a citizen, soldier, or anything, so that you can lock them up in Guantanamo bay indefinitely (for example).
So there is a disconnect here between what is human and what is a citizen, and this is what a very smart man named Giorgio Agamben calls the state of exception; where it becomes normal to have juxtapositions like this in our everyday lives. In this way, Rwanda forced us to look at the permanent state of exception that we all live in here in Canada (or any other developed nation), we guarantee human rights within our country, but refuse them to non-citizens, and as members of the UN we guarantee human rights to all on earth, but then refuse to enforce them.
Next time you defend human rights, make sure you know what they entail. Next time you think about Rwanda, think about the plaque outside Dachau that reads "never again" in various different languages. Think about what it will involve to truly never let things like this happen again. You might notice there is a common theme here that is required to avoid genocide, deal with hatred, and talk about human rights.
You have to think about it.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I love the smell of Ethics in the morning
There's a guy named Scanlon, and he says "the contractualist account of moral wrongness refers to principles ‘which no one could reasonably reject’ rather than to principles ‘which everyone could reasonably accept’".
Basically, if there's no reason for you to rationally (i.e. logically) reject something, then it must be ok.
“Consider a principle under which some people will suffer sever hardships, and suppose that these hardships are avoidable. That is, there are alternative principles under which no one would have to bear comparable burdens. It might happen, however, that the people on whom these hardship fall are particularly self-sacrificing, and are willing to accept the burdens for the sake of what they see as the greater good of all. We would not say, I think, that it would be unreasonable for them to do this. On the other hand, it might not be unreasonable for them to refuse these burdens, and hence, not unreasonable for someone to reject a principle requiring him to bear them. If this rejection would be reasonable, then the principle imposing these burdens is put in doubt, despite the fact that some particularly self-sacrificing people could (reasonably) accept it.”
So its possible that the people under the burdens could be alleviated of them, reasonably. If it was unavoidable that someone suffers, then it might be reasonable to convince someone their burden was necessary. But that is not the case in this example, say that whatever burdens exist could be lifted. It would not be unreasonable to reject the burdens, but it would also not be unreasonable for them to continue to bear them by choice.
Because there are ALTERNATIVE principles, and the burden in the example is not inevitable, you still have good reason to reject it. The good reason is that we can avoid it. You can be in a position of having good reasons to both reject and accept a principle. But what really matters is whether or not we have a good reason to REJECT, and not necessarily accept something. If you CAN find a reason to reject, even though you accept, that is what matters.
You endure things only because there is no alternative, there is no way for you to rationally reject something or have an alternative. Just because some stoic wants to or is able to endure something doesn’t mean that you need to, if you CAN reject it.
Welcome to my weekday mornings.
Basically, if there's no reason for you to rationally (i.e. logically) reject something, then it must be ok.
“Consider a principle under which some people will suffer sever hardships, and suppose that these hardships are avoidable. That is, there are alternative principles under which no one would have to bear comparable burdens. It might happen, however, that the people on whom these hardship fall are particularly self-sacrificing, and are willing to accept the burdens for the sake of what they see as the greater good of all. We would not say, I think, that it would be unreasonable for them to do this. On the other hand, it might not be unreasonable for them to refuse these burdens, and hence, not unreasonable for someone to reject a principle requiring him to bear them. If this rejection would be reasonable, then the principle imposing these burdens is put in doubt, despite the fact that some particularly self-sacrificing people could (reasonably) accept it.”
So its possible that the people under the burdens could be alleviated of them, reasonably. If it was unavoidable that someone suffers, then it might be reasonable to convince someone their burden was necessary. But that is not the case in this example, say that whatever burdens exist could be lifted. It would not be unreasonable to reject the burdens, but it would also not be unreasonable for them to continue to bear them by choice.
Because there are ALTERNATIVE principles, and the burden in the example is not inevitable, you still have good reason to reject it. The good reason is that we can avoid it. You can be in a position of having good reasons to both reject and accept a principle. But what really matters is whether or not we have a good reason to REJECT, and not necessarily accept something. If you CAN find a reason to reject, even though you accept, that is what matters.
You endure things only because there is no alternative, there is no way for you to rationally reject something or have an alternative. Just because some stoic wants to or is able to endure something doesn’t mean that you need to, if you CAN reject it.
Welcome to my weekday mornings.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
To copy a friend's style, here are some lyrics
I'm no king, I wear no crown. But desperate times seem over now. Yet I weaken, somehow; and it tears me apart.
I've broken a few rules for this person, and so far I have the opposite of regret about it, which I can't find the word for right now... optimism? jubilation? Who knows. But I think it's interesting either way, because no matter what happens this experience has taught me something. You will never learn anything new about other people, or yourself, unless you have the confidence to step outside what you find safe, no matter how logically you think you have considered all the options and all the outcomes and all the eventualities.
Hey! Nothing like self-centered pining and contrived emotion for a college kid, right? Well ok, lets put it another way: based in utilitarian principles of seeking the greatest amount of happiness, and perhaps the Epicurean conception of happiness consisting of not being fucking hurt and simply free from pain, it appears to make sense to follow your rules about no long-distance relationships, the benefits of one night stands, etc. Yet somehow, this doesn't account for various types, or intensity of pleasures and happiness. There are entire kinds of happiness that could be engaged in the world, just by those who are more willing to release themselves from their principles.
Like Hume said, emotion is the only true motivating factor when it comes to our decision making. So then shouldn't it also be the prime factor when looking at fellow human beings?
Basically I'm saying this is something new, and that's what the lyrics are for. Things will go wrong, and I will be anxious, and all my old trains of thought will no doubt tear me up, but things will move along. And hopefully take me with them.
I've broken a few rules for this person, and so far I have the opposite of regret about it, which I can't find the word for right now... optimism? jubilation? Who knows. But I think it's interesting either way, because no matter what happens this experience has taught me something. You will never learn anything new about other people, or yourself, unless you have the confidence to step outside what you find safe, no matter how logically you think you have considered all the options and all the outcomes and all the eventualities.
Hey! Nothing like self-centered pining and contrived emotion for a college kid, right? Well ok, lets put it another way: based in utilitarian principles of seeking the greatest amount of happiness, and perhaps the Epicurean conception of happiness consisting of not being fucking hurt and simply free from pain, it appears to make sense to follow your rules about no long-distance relationships, the benefits of one night stands, etc. Yet somehow, this doesn't account for various types, or intensity of pleasures and happiness. There are entire kinds of happiness that could be engaged in the world, just by those who are more willing to release themselves from their principles.
Like Hume said, emotion is the only true motivating factor when it comes to our decision making. So then shouldn't it also be the prime factor when looking at fellow human beings?
Basically I'm saying this is something new, and that's what the lyrics are for. Things will go wrong, and I will be anxious, and all my old trains of thought will no doubt tear me up, but things will move along. And hopefully take me with them.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I find the general lack of capital letters disturbing.
I like grammar. What's wrong with it? I agree, using "1337 speek" can express things to n00bs that otherwise would be lost, but there's a reason that the English language evolved the way it did people.
Who knows how to properly use a semi-colon? Not I, but I'm sure there is an entire body of knowledge regarding ';' that will soon be lost to all of us. Kind of like how the U.S. forgot how to make their Trident nuclear warheads...
But obviously, not as bad.
It still frustrates me to think that things like calligraphy and proper scriptive writing are going the way of the Betamax, all because of the computer. Not that I'm a shining example, far from it. I still half-handwrite and half-print anytime I find myself with a pen and paper.
In conclusion, go learn calligraphy.
Who knows how to properly use a semi-colon? Not I, but I'm sure there is an entire body of knowledge regarding ';' that will soon be lost to all of us. Kind of like how the U.S. forgot how to make their Trident nuclear warheads...
But obviously, not as bad.
It still frustrates me to think that things like calligraphy and proper scriptive writing are going the way of the Betamax, all because of the computer. Not that I'm a shining example, far from it. I still half-handwrite and half-print anytime I find myself with a pen and paper.
In conclusion, go learn calligraphy.
Monday, March 9, 2009
I'll sleep when I'm dead
So tired... assignments due... journals due... books to read... classes to register for... papers due... debate coming up.
No rest for the wicked. Man I hope I'm not wicked, because I get no rest.
On a completely related note, I hate daylight saving time. There is no point to it, none. Thank goodness I'm from Saskatchewan.
No rest for the wicked. Man I hope I'm not wicked, because I get no rest.
On a completely related note, I hate daylight saving time. There is no point to it, none. Thank goodness I'm from Saskatchewan.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Your new homepage(s)
If you're Canadian, this needs to be your homepage.
Don't be fooled by the simple layout. Everything you need to know, before you need to know it, is there. It's not just a tag line, trust me. It's accurate.
Concurrently, if you want the buzz about the internet but can't be bothered to check all those meta-sites, use popurls.com to aggregate all the social sites like digg, reddit, youtube, flickr, deli.cio.us, etc. (who uses delicious though, really?). It can be customized, too.
Happy hunting. Only a few more days till spring.
Don't be fooled by the simple layout. Everything you need to know, before you need to know it, is there. It's not just a tag line, trust me. It's accurate.
Concurrently, if you want the buzz about the internet but can't be bothered to check all those meta-sites, use popurls.com to aggregate all the social sites like digg, reddit, youtube, flickr, deli.cio.us, etc. (who uses delicious though, really?). It can be customized, too.
Happy hunting. Only a few more days till spring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)