tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37606480179664644252024-03-13T08:50:19.042-07:00the good delusiona healthy dose of moral skepticismbrandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05211598383803481068noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-85988627330789043882015-01-02T00:55:00.002-08:002015-01-02T00:55:42.869-08:00Last postHi, just to let you know there will be no more posts made at this site. Due to time constraints and experience from running this site, I have moved shop and shifted (broadened) focus while changing my approach. You can still comment to pages & posts or contact me through the site. brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-16950853743783868982014-09-21T13:16:00.002-07:002014-09-21T13:16:39.728-07:00Truth, Fiction, and Losing Sight of What's Important<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A</span><span style="font-size: large;">s an atheist,</span> I don't care when religious types claim some interpretation of their faith is "not true." After all, this behavior has been with us since phenotypic diversity in Scotsmen [1]. We know very well what the speaker means. X is something they don't like, and they don't want it associated with Y (usually themselves). If for some reason an atheist took that claim literally, it should be a mere redundancy, eliciting the response "Yes, of course, that version too." However, some atheists have been taking the claim too seriously. And I find that I do care when atheists waste time combating this well known fallacy, and (more baffling to me) try to argue what interpretation should be considered a believer's "true" faith. This activity suggests they have lost sight of what is important, as it often undercuts efforts required to achieve real, secular gains. Current events have made this a relevant issue to discuss, as it raises (to my mind) a moral question for atheists operating as public intellectuals.</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
When President Obama recently announced the US military would engage Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq and Syria, one would think that the New Atheists who banged the drums of "war with Islam" the loudest would have been happy. Instead they were upset, not with the details, but the wording with which it was delivered [2,3]. In doing what any politician would do to raise support for a broad military effort that requires large numbers of muslims, Obama used the rhetorical device of defining IS as not Islamic, going so far as to claim IS is not even religious. Of course that, like most things US presidents say, is pure hokum designed to please the people they need to work with. He was talking to their prejudices. Yet Sam Harris took Obama's words seriously, and blasted his speech as if its factual inaccuracies could serve as a backdoor allowing Islamic militants to recover from any military defeat and apparently (according to his suggestive title "Sleepwalking to Armageddon") destroy the world? Jerry Coyne wrote a follow-up to Sam's essay that at times flirted with the kind of commentary that concerns me, going so far as to call Obama an apologist (while basically declaring war?), but ended in a very lucid analysis of the nature of "true" faiths and our discussions of them.:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"In the end, there is no “true” religion in the factual sense, for there is no good evidence supporting their truth claims. Neither are there “true” religions in the moral sense. Every faith justifies itself and its practices by appeal to authority, revelation, and dogma. There are just some religions we like better than others because of their practical consequences. If that’s what we mean by “true,” we should just admit it. There’s no shame in that, for it’s certainly the case that societies based on some religions are more dysfunctional than others. Morality itself is neither objectively “true” nor “false,” but at bottom rests on subjective preferences: the “oughts” that come from what we see as the consequences of behaving one way versus another. By all means let us say that ISIS is a strain of Islam that is barbaric and dysfunctional, but let us not hear any nonsense that it’s a “false religion”. ISIS, like all religious movements, is based on faith; and faith, which is belief in the absence of convincing evidence, isn’t true or false, but simply irrational.[3]"</blockquote>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, I liked that a lot. </div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
In tweeting my approval, I mentioned that (because I hold this position) I didn't understand why Sam Harris bothers arguing about the nature of "true" Islam. Unexpectedly, Sam Harris replied to that tweet challenging me whether the Koran would recommend eating bacon or not. He seemed to miss the whole point of that last paragraph and so what I was saying. Of course there are verses that would nix pork, but what would that have to do with any version of Islam being more "true"? He felt that I was somehow misunderstanding him and explained he was referring to reads being more or less plausible. Yes, and that is not what I was criticizing, only his use of wording to suggest more or less plausible reads are somehow more or less "true" for muslims, with of course the most plausible being (by necessity) the most true. </div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Sam eventually dropped out, I would hope because he understood what I was actually criticizing. However another person continued to press the point Sam had made, suggesting that I must have misread Sam's meaning. He asked for quotes, and in digging through Sam's writings for examples I realized an essay on losing sight of what's important was in order. But first a couple quotes to show what I was talking about.:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"Again, we’re not talking about a distortion of <b>the “true” Islam</b>. The ideology that gives us jihadism is arguably <b>the most plausible version</b> of the faith available, <b>according to an honest reading</b> of the scriptures.[4][my emphasis]"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">"Unfortunately, in the case of Islam, </span><b style="text-align: justify;">the bad acts of the worst individuals</b><span style="text-align: justify;">—the jihadists, the murderers of apostates, and the men who treat their wives and daughters like chattel—</span><b style="text-align: justify;">are the best examples of the doctrine in practice</b><span style="text-align: justify;">.[5][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
Admittedly these do not show Sam using the word "true" himself. However, the first quote shows he is talking about what constitutes "true" Islam, and I am concerned with any claim (not just the use of the word true) that argues a singularly "true" interpretation of any religion. "Most plausible version according to an honest reading" leaves no room for equally plausible or honest reads beyond the one that Sam is endorsing. Same for "best examples of the doctrine." If one wants to quibble whether they mean the same thing as "true", it is easy to point out that if Obama had said "Only moderate muslims practice the most plausible version of Islam, exhibiting the best examples of its doctrine", and "IS practices a completely dishonest, implausible reading of Islamic scripture" Sam arguably would (and certainly could) have written the same essay. </div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
To my mind, atheists have no business getting into the scriptural interpretation game, judging what is "the most (honest, plausible)" or "the best (example, authority)" or "the 'true' (doctrine, tenets)". Sure if one wants to point out that a specific read is valid, that can make sense in limited circumstances. Same for arguing a relatively more plausible read given a specified (assumed) context, if one happens to study religious texts. But what is the point in trying to argue anything beyond that? I made this point earlier in the final part of my response to Sam's book the Moral Landscape.: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"If he believes (as an atheist) that holy scripture is man made and open to a variety of interpretations, what is he doing talking about "true Islam" at all? When people cite pretty moderate Koranic verses, [Sam] discusses how important Islamic scholars cite supplementary material as being equally important, with quotes from those texts allowing for greater militancy. How on earth does that particular interpretation count as more "true" than any other group's interpretations which downplay such material? Even if we assume the Koran is filled with verses that support militancy, how would that make those selecting the more moderate interpretation (even if cherry-picking) less "true" as believers? It is all storytelling, with inherently conflicting verses that allows for such editing! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Consequently there is no legitimate reason for anyone (particularly someone committed to human well-being) to take a position defending/advocating the side practicing violence as more "true". It might be "original", or "highly popular after the rise of certain sects", but "true" islam? And even if it was arguably a "true" version of Islam in the past, it is not the [singularly] "true" Islam practiced today. Religions have constantly splintered then renewed themselves for new eras, so why should Islam be an exception? Harris praises the peaceful tendencies of the Amish, but if he were around at their formation it seems he would have supported their persecutors, deriding the Amish for not following the "true" Christian faith. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
If [Sam means what he says in the Moral Landscape about moral truths], and moderate Islam is at least closer to allowing for human flourishing than militant fundamentalist interpretations, why is he not advocating that as "true" or at least "truer" Islam?[6]"</blockquote>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
That last sentence gets at what I mean by losing sight of what is important. The only interpretation or denominations we (as atheists) should be worried about "endorsing" are those that share similar secular goals. The idea that we should be concerned whether their interpretation is what the most literal reading of their texts might indicate their God(s) really want (which is itself an assumption) seems absurd on its face. At times it seems that New Atheists believe that by forcing religious people into a choice between "the worst" their religion might demand and "the best" atheism has to offer they will come to their senses and convert. Indeed reading Sam and Jerry's posts [2,3,7], one wonders if they believe something would have been accomplished if Obama had announced "Look, Islam is bad news, and IS is the poster child of their true desires. These folks demand death to apostates and nonbelievers, just read their scripture!"</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Today, Islam is undergoing a form of civil war (intellectual and physical), and it is their war about valid interpretations of Islam, not ours. We should only be concerned with helping those that want to keep Islam a part of secular, democratic societies (where it already is) and encourage values that allow compatibility with such ends (where it is not). That might entail helping many different denominations of Islam, without naive expectations that conversion to atheism is their (and our) only hope. As it is, religious societies built secular governments long before the rise of atheism, ironically to protect the religious from themselves. One would think given the violence in the Middle East, Islamic nations could be ripe for this prospective solution. </div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Towards such ends, Sam deserves a "shot in the foot" award. :</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"<span class="s1">Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and </span><b>finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges</b><span class="s1"> the civilized world now faces.</span><b> But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines</b><span class="s1"> of Muslim “extremists,” </span><b>because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran</b><span class="s1">.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s2"><b>Yes, many Muslims happily ignore the apostasy and blasphemy of their neighbors</b></span>, view women as the moral equals of men, and consider anti-Semitism contemptible. But there are also Muslims who drink alcohol and eat bacon.<span class="s2"><b> All of these persuasions run counter to the explicit teachings of Islam to one or another degree. </b></span>And just like moderates in every other religion, most moderate Muslims become obscurantists when defending their faith from criticism. <span class="s2"><b>They rely on modern, secular values—for instance, tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights—as a basis for reinterpreting and ignoring the most despicable parts of their holy books.</b></span> But they nevertheless demand that we respect the idea of revelation, and this leaves us perpetually vulnerable to more literal readings of scripture. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
A single line in Matthew—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”—largely accounts for why the West isn’t still hostage to theocracy. <span class="s2"><b>The Koran contains a few lines that could be equally potent—for instance, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—but these sparks of tolerance are easily snuffed out</b></span>. <span class="s2"><b>Transforming Islam into a truly benign faith will require a miracle of re-interpretation.</b></span> And a few intrepid reformers, such as <span class="s3">Maajid Nawaz</span>, are doing their best to accomplish it.[2][my emphasis]"</blockquote>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
So basically Sam argues that on top of reform being an impossible task (requiring miracles, really? moderates already exist Sam) potential reformers should be seen (according to best reads) as dishonest turncoats to Islam. And anyway it seems that if any belief in Islam is left alive then people are "vulnerable" to militancy. Well good luck with that project Maajid! To be fair, Sam has recently tweeted support for Maajid's cause, but it might equally be useful if he stayed well away from discussing his personal "revelations" about Islamic scripture in the future. </div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
The attitude and practice shown above not only shuts us out of helping believers grow secular values within religious communities, it has diverted efforts away from the temporal, earth bound issues that ought to be the top concerns of atheists. Without God(s) shouldn't just about anything other than correct interpretation of scripture be our main topic of discussion? It is notable that in neither Sam or Jerry's essays, as concerned as they were with Obama's opinions of "true" interpretations, neither one of them mentioned his working interpretation of executive powers as defined by the US constitution. That is a document written by men, and just as vulnerable to autocratic or democratic interpretations. The only "real world" issue within that speech was his apparent belief that he did not need authorization from Congress to direct military assets at IS. Shouldn't that have been an atheist's greater concern?</div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
Funny enough, after Obama set out his plan Jerry's jimmies were finally rustled by down to earth realities.:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"First he said he had no plan, then his plan was airstrikes, and now his plan is U.S. airstrikes combined with “boots on the ground” from other countries, like Turkey or Lebanon. And that plan is just dumb. Not because it’s unworkable in principle, but because it’s unworkable in practice. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
What do we do? I have no idea. Half the time I think that we should just disengage from the region completely, at least from the futile wars in which we’ve already lost so many lives. Let ISIS do what they can; is it our responsibility to police the world? But then I think of all the innocents being slaughtered by that group, and how nobody but the U.S. can do anything about that, even if only by leading. Not only that, but clearly ISIS, if it becomes a dominant force in the region, will export its methods to our own country. It needs <i>Lebensraum</i> for its religion and its Caliphate. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps Obama is stymied by an unwinnable situation, and that accounts for his waffling. But right now all I see is that we’ll be pouring money and effort into a venture that is doomed to failure.[8]"</blockquote>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
From the beginning people like Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill were questioning the utility of military action. On twitter, Sam ripped into Scahill for raising the questions that apparently are just occurring to Jerry, demanding if his doubts meant we should just let IS run roughshod over Iraq. Given that Sam has not challenged Jerry, one wonders if perhaps he has similar reservations now that his cataclysmic at-war-with-Islam rhetoric has borne fruit. Frankly, these are the types of issues atheists should be mulling over. <i>These</i> are secular concerns.</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Sam also had a pretty public dust-up with Glenn Greenwald, and Sam's inability to depart from theistic concerns clearly blocked his vision regarding Greenwald's actual contribution to the problem of militant Islamic regimes.:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"<b>Liberals like Greenwald</b>, who are so eager to swing the flail of Islamophobia, <b>display a sickening insensitivity to the plight of women, homosexuals, and freethinkers throughout the Muslim world</b>. At this moment, millions of women and girls have been abandoned to illiteracy, compulsory marriage, and lives of slavery and abuse under the guise of “multiculturalism” and “religious sensitivity.” And the most liberal Muslim minds are forced into hiding. <b>The best way to address this problem is by no means obvious. But lying about its cause, and defaming those who speak honestly in defense of a global civil society, seems a very unlikely path to a solution.</b>[3][my emphasis]"</blockquote>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
It is an open question to Sam where Greenwald exhibited disregard for any of those oppressed people, and where he defamed anyone <i>for</i> speaking honestly in defense of a global civil society. All he did was criticize specific actions that to his mind did not work to promote a global civil society. But the irony here is palpable. While Sam attempts the atheistic conversion of billions, the work of Greenwald (and those he works with) explicitly helps those very people Sam claims to be concerned with. Glenn's apparent goal is the empowerment of individuals, particularly with regard to freedom of communication and personal autonomy. Perhaps these cannot be directly enacted within militant Islamic regimes, but by building and growing such protections (and technologies) within Western nations it will assist individuals living outside who want to do the same. And in any case, what good is talking about a global civil society while letting that slip away right where we live?</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Sam and most other New Atheists appear to be so unreasonably frightened by the "threat" of militant Islam, that they cannot see more important matters developing within their own society. And if they are not blind to these issues, they certainly seem mute. There is a "civil war" of sorts going on in Western nations (thankfully just intellectual) regarding the interpretation of wholly secular documents which is vastly more important than the "most plausible" interpretations of Islamic scripture. That "war" is being lost by default based on the success of government obfuscation and a deadly combination of public apathy and misdirected concern (due to a heightened fear of militant Islam, which the government and New Atheists promote).</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Outside of Daniel Dennett (and kudos to him!), I have not seen any prominent New Atheist openly discuss the important revelations of government overreach delivered by Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald [9]. Nor have they promoted movements designed to enhance freedom of communication and protect individuals from government persecution [10]. In fact Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, and Michael Shermer have all questioned (and I don't mean rationally as skeptics) Edward Snowden as a person, rather than writing anything intelligent about the facts that have been revealed (and which started a conversation even President Obama admits is important). </div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Last February, Sam endorsed Jeremy Scahill's documentary questioning drone strikes and covert warfare, suggesting it made him start thinking about such issues : </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
"Any response to terrorism seems likely to kill and injure innocent people, and such collateral damage will always produce some number of future enemies. But <i>Dirty Wars</i> made me think that the consequences of producing such casualties covertly are probably far worse. This may not sound like a Road to Damascus conversion, but it is actually quite significant. My view of specific questions has changed—for instance, I now believe that the assassination of al-Awlaki set a very dangerous precedent—and my general sense of our actions abroad has grown conflicted. I do not doubt that we need to spy, maintain state secrets, and sometimes engage in covert operations, but I now believe that the world is paying an unacceptable price for the degree to which we are doing these things. The details of how we have been waging our war on terror are appalling, and Scahill’s film paints a picture of callousness and ineptitude that shocked me. Having seen it, I am embarrassed to have been so trusting and complacent with respect to my government’s use of force.[11]"</blockquote>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately the rise of IS appears to have spooked Sam back into a mindset less open to such skepticism, though as mentioned war-post-facto he has yet to comment on Jerry's concerns which (to some degree) appeared to mirror Scahill's.</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
It would be a breath of fresh air to find public intellectuals who claim to represent the concerns of atheists (that is people who do not believe in supernatural entities) spending more of their time discussing what constitutes the "most plausible" interpretation of our legal texts and "best examples" of what we want practiced by our own secular societies. Those are the things we have an arguable chance of effecting, and where the actual protections of our rights as individuals will be found. And if such intellectuals must discuss Islamic nations, and cultures, then discussions limited to who within them share the same longterm civil interests and how to help empower them to make real secular gains. </div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
….</div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
This essay could have been titled Losing one's moral bearings in the Middle East pt2. If you like the sentiments within this, I recommend <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/2014/09/losing-ones-moral-bearings-in-middle.html">reading the other article which concentrates on atheist concerns in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict</a>.</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
Refs.</div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
1) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman</a></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p7" style="text-align: justify;">
2) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon</a></div>
<div class="p8" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p9" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s2">3) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%22"><span class="s4">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/what-is-a-true-religion/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p10" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p7" style="text-align: justify;">
4) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia</a></div>
<div class="p8" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p11" style="text-align: justify;">
5) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#views_on_islam">http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#views_on_islam</a></div>
<div class="p8" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p11" style="text-align: justify;">
6) <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/full-response_30.html#chapt9">http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/full-response_30.html#chapt9</a></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p9" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s2">7) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%22"><span class="s4">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/jesus-n-mo-n-the-no-true-muslim-fallacy/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p9" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s2">8) <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%22"><span class="s4">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/obama-vs-isis/</span></a></span></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
9) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)#Timeline">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)#Timeline</a></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
10 <a href="https://www.fightforthefuture.org/">https://www.fightforthefuture.org/</a></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
11) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasure-of-changing-my-mind">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-pleasure-of-changing-my-mind</a></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-75146861791201286102014-09-06T02:26:00.000-07:002014-09-06T02:26:00.333-07:00Losing one's moral bearings in the Middle East<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw_nBP3lZX_pS0C8yuayqHhF7LR83wWKLeSbkbfz9XEWlBqYTc30OvV4e2WJ9gRGcBNiABiN7RFja3DpBvmiXyif6adyDlWg-OZLi3DNGx0fWf1yD6WNp7vQAAxXBXKQU8jEOAIa0sS54/s1600/bearings2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw_nBP3lZX_pS0C8yuayqHhF7LR83wWKLeSbkbfz9XEWlBqYTc30OvV4e2WJ9gRGcBNiABiN7RFja3DpBvmiXyif6adyDlWg-OZLi3DNGx0fWf1yD6WNp7vQAAxXBXKQU8jEOAIa0sS54/s1600/bearings2.jpg" height="130" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">T</span>he Israelis and Palestinians have just suffered another round of self-inflicted horror and injustice, with both sides claiming a rather dubious "victory." Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris weighed in on the conflict, and both came to relatively similar conclusions which I found disappointing. That they treated the topic as fundamentally a moral issue rather than a practical one got my attention, and I want to address problems with their arguments and conclusions. Briefly put, they argue that the Palestinians are morally inferior to Israelis, and suggest this has some meaning in how we ought to handle criticism of either side. They also view the conflict between these two groups as parallel to the situation Western nations face with the growth of militant Islam. I think they lost their way on their moral mapping expeditions, perhaps in part because their moral compasses are errantly fixed on Israel as if it were true north.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Before people assume what my position is, let me start by saying that this essay is intended to deliver an unconventional perspective or mindset on that conflict and the larger problem of militant Islam. I am not in any sense going to argue for moral equivalence, or that Palestinians are somehow superior to Israelis. My take on the nature of moral judgment precludes such concepts. So I hope readers will stick through until the end, even if it seems in parts to be rehashing familiar debate.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">l. Sam and Jerry </span></b></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jerry Coyne was on the issue from the beginning, with a post addressing the murder of three Israeli teens presumably by Hamas [1]. In a rather short-sighted move his first post criticized President Obama for urging "restraint on both sides", while dismissing any potential response by Israel as part of a "cycle of revenge". Surprisingly he did not admit his error even when announcing the (sadly foreseeable) revenge murder of a young Palestinian boy that ultimately set the wheels spinning on that well-used cycle of revenge [2]. Jerry's outrage at the boy’s killing rang a bit hollow as it ended in sustained criticism of Palestinians, gilded with Israeli apologetics. In a recent post, suggesting Western media has become a mouthpiece for Hamas and inherent Western anti-semitism, he starts by explicitly stating the takeaway message from his previous essays [3].</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Most readers know that I feel Israel, <i>vis-à-vis</i> its conflict with Palestine, has been given a raw deal in both world opinion and the world press. They also know that I don’t think that the country is blameless in the Middle East fracas (the settlements, for example, are unconscionable), but that <b>they hold the moral high ground over the Palestinians</b>, who are sworn to extirpate Israel and determined to kill civilians directly. [3][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Israel is not blameless, commits unconscionable acts even, </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">but </i><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">holds the moral high ground. Indeed, Jerry is so intensely invested in this concept of moral superiority that he totally blew a gasket when he mistakenly thought I was arguing Israelis and Palestinians were morally equivalent [4]. </span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<b>Same level of hatred</b>? Really?… <b>This false "equality"</b> is ridiculous… This kind of <b>touting of false equality</b>, which flies in the face of all facts, is ludicrous… Get real, please. It's amazing that people can convince themselves of <b>an equality of immorality</b> that flies in the face of all facts. Are you really that obtuse?[4][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The emphasized words reveal the equivocation he introduced in his zeal to root out and destroy any idea that Israelis might somehow be morally equivalent to Palestinians. I had not yet realized the problem I was facing when I answered, giving sufficient counter-evidence and asking him to retract his incorrect conclusion [5]. I thought that would be the end of it. A simple miscommunication, over.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I was wrong. Rather than admitting his mistake, he ignored all counter-evidence and doubled down on his initial error, attempting to hang his hat on the single tiny phrase: "same level of hatred" [5]. He argued that means such hatred must be promoted by the Israeli government (when I said the exact opposite in the very reply he was criticizing) or that such anger must be held by the same number of Israelis as Palestinians (which did not fit with my prior comments). </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That is a lot to unpack from those four words, and the passion with which he insists those are my only options suggests it comes from his baggage, not mine. Most important, he repeated his original, erroneous conclusion:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"You are touting <b>moral equality</b> of Israelis and Palestinians, and don't pretend otherwise.[5][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I replied with what I had assumed was obvious. Hatred is generally not considered equivalent to intentions or actions and so not open to moral judgment. For example slaves can hate their masters and that would not make them less moral. Jerry clearly hates arguments that Palestinians are morally equal to Israelis, and that does not make him less moral. Hatred is a sentiment or emotion, and lacks moral dimension. It is what one does with that hatred that opens the door to moral evaluation. So even if I was arguing a quantitatively equal level of hatred across both Israeli and Palestinian populations (which I was not), that would not say one thing about their relative moral states. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unfortunately that reply never saw the light of day as Jerry had already banned me from his site. No warnings or explanations were given though I clearly hadn't broken any of his "Roolz". He wouldn't even respond to email. The silent treatment. The refuge of pouty children. Brilliant. This move left me sorely disillusioned, and to be honest a bit creeped out. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I leave it for Jerry to defend (or wrestle with) his inability to deal with his mistakes or miscommunications in a reasonable manner. The reason I bring it up is to show how emotionally invested Jerry is in moralizing the conflict, such that discussions of practical facts get translated into large scale moral judgments. And if the "resulting" moral judgment of his favored actor is "incorrect", according to his a priori position they are superior, those facts and any criticisms based on them are reduced, rejected, or purged. Am I wrong in thinking this is not useful in reaching rational conclusions?</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sam Harris entered the scene well into the conflict. After a particularly disproportionate military response to Hamas provocations, Sam wrote an essay explaining why he won't criticize Israel [6]. Andrew Sullivan critiqued Sam's essay, noting in particular its internal inconsistency [7]. Sam claimed that Andrew misunderstood his position and asked for a dialogue. A transcript of the the resulting conversation was posted on both of their sites [8,9]. Andrew certainly came off (to me) as the more rational voice in that dialogue. Since then, Andrew's site has published further interesting and eloquent articles on the conflict by Freddie deBoer [10,11,12]. A large difference between Sam's position and theirs is that they retain consistency by largely sticking with an analysis of on the ground practicalities rather than abstracted moral judgment driven by hypotheticals using assumed intentions. Statements throughout Sam's original essay explicitly describe Palestinian moral inferiority as obvious and how readers might reach similar clarity on that issue.:</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"The truth is that <b>there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies.</b> The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them… </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">… this gets to the heart of <b>the moral difference between Israel and her enemies</b>… <b>To see this moral difference</b>, <b>you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it…</b></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">… you have to <b>ask yourself,</b> <b>what do these groups want?</b> What would they accomplish if they could accomplish anything?[6][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So to Sam it is the extreme disparity between their intentions, and not the real life consequences of their actions that really matter here. This appears to be in direct conflict with his oft-stated position of being a consequentialist [13, 14]. However, I will let that slide to address the methods and conclusions of his newfound moral theory. Clearly he agrees with Jerry that there is a moral distinction between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the latter's genocidal intentions, and that this should lead us to some different treatment of Israel when assessing the consequences of her actions. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With these moral distinctions set, Sam and to some extent Jerry employ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a proxy for the state of the world, staging a "clash of civilizations" style drama with Israel as the stand in for “us” (secular, democratic nations) and the Palestinians for “them” (militant Islamic organizations). The sense they are attempting to convey is that, like Israel, we are "surrounded" by enemies that want nothing more than to kill us all. This point was driven home in the (unintentionally ironic) conclusion of Sam's original essay.:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.[1]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I say ironic as only within the borders of that metaphor would most of this planet ever be welcomed by Israel to consider themselves "living in Israel." </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">ll. Israel and Palestine</span></b></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Their moral evaluation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contains five flaws.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><i><b><span class="s1">1) Our inability to apply comparative moral labels to groups.</span> </b></i></u></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a moral skeptic and anti-realist I find the use of generic moral labeling of individuals, or generic comparative assessments between people (equivalent, superior, inferior) meaningless and boring. If you find moral philosophy itself meaningless and boring you can skip this point as the others are sufficient to make my case. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Certainly descriptive moral statements can be generated about particular actions (by groups or individuals). For example, torturing everyone in the neighboring village for sport was a cruel and unjust act to those villagers. If we must simplify language to express our distaste for these kinds of acts we can say they were "bad". </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One can also produce a generalized description of an individual's moral character based on the body of their actions. For example, it may be said that a person has usually acted honestly or justly toward others (in simple terms "good"). But such labels are not wholly intelligible. The person may have been good towards some and bad towards others. In that case is their character based on the quantity or quality of the (in)justices they do? And how is this measured over time? If a person kills someone, and so does something sufficiently "bad", is it once a killer always a killer? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With these inherent limitations, abstracted labels give us little to no added information that we can use. They do not tell what the person will do now, or in the future. You say that person is "good"? So what? Tell me what they have done in this specific type of situation before and then I might have an idea what they will do now. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With this in mind, generating a generic moral label for a group (that can be compared in some equal fashion with another group) does not seem plausible. For example, we cannot say that Israelis as a whole "are morally superior" to Palestinians as a whole. This is because spread over time and individuals moral labels begin to lose any possible "hitching posts", being abstracted beyond the point of practical utility and perhaps impeding our ability to judge the morality of their actions. What if the majority of these populations are just but varying quantities of minorities within them are unjust, inflicting varying levels of injustice on others? How do we evaluate all of these variables in a coherent fashion? </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As it happens, nations and their supporters will arguably rest on the laurels of past "good conduct" to excuse all sorts of "necessary evils" to protect or advance their "goodness", while rejecting any evidence of outright "bad conduct" as not truly representing themselves. This is usually where "buttering" comes in handy. For example Sam argues that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state (making it such was wrong), it has committed war crimes, and its settlement policy is terrible, "but…" and then one's initial moral read on those acts is shifted through buttery excuses until the moral compass reads "good" once again.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If there is any sense that I am arguing for moral equality it is that groups are best considered equally <i>undefined</i> moral entities, since there are no realistic abstracted moral labels that can be compared in some 1 to 1 sense. However, this is not to say that specific acts (or intentions regarding specific acts) cannot be described in a way that can be compared.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To be fair, Sam and Jerry are pressing the case that we focus on a very specific set of intentions and so presumed specific sets of actions. If artificially restricted to a moral evaluation of simply "genocide v. good neighbor" it is obvious that one would be considered "morally superior" (i.e. preferable by most people's tastes) to the other. I would argue that this is a crass oversimplification of intents, and the problems I raised here about how generalized labels are applied to groups can be seen haunting their evaluations of both Israelis and Palestinians. I don't think they have a solid answer to these problems, except to create ad hoc defenses to retain their initial, over-simplified positions.</span></div>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><i><b><span class="s1">2) Israeli intentions are not so clear cut.</span> </b></i></u></span></div>
<div class="p4" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p5" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In building the superiority of Israeli morality, Sam argues Israel simply wants to live in peace, suggesting that most of the activities for which Israel is criticized can be blamed on Israeli extremism (which he downplays as small) or as legitimate security responses to Palestinian extremism. In fact, Sam went so far as to claim:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Absent Palestinian terrorism and Muslim anti-Semitism, we could be talking about a “one-state solution,” and the settlements would be moot.[1]" </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That statement reveals a lack of familiarity with the situation, as well as the whole point (and history) of Israel’s emergence as a Jewish state. He would be wise to research Israeli fears of the one-state solution, as well as Palestinian support for it [15, 16]. Ironically, a law professor has recently argued that Israelis should stop fearing a one-state solution, so they can take that "weapon" away from the Palestinians and turn it back against them [17]! The title of his lecture on the topic was “Who is afraid of a one-state solution?” and the rather obvious answer was both, with Israelis fearing it more than Palestinians at the moment. And this is not due to fears of violence, but (in addition to religious concerns) ensuring the majority voting power of a specific ethnic group.</span><span class="s2" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Leaving that issue aside, Sam gives support for his claim regarding Israel's benign intentions.:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want… Now, is it possible that some Israeli soldiers go berserk under pressure and wind up shooting into crowds of rock-throwing children? Of course... But we know that this isn’t the general intent of Israel. We know the Israelis do not want to kill non-combatants, because they could kill as many as they want, and they’re not doing it.[1]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The idea that we "know" what Jewish-Israelis would do to Palestinians, if they could do anything, based on what they have done so far is patently false. Israel certainly has the physical capacity to do what it wants with the Palestinians, but it cannot exert such power in the face of the rest of the world. Israel relies heavily on US support as well as relative inaction of the international community. As Sam recognizes himself, Israel stands to become a pariah if it acts too strongly. Since Israel does not have carte blanche, its actions (and so our knowledge about possible intentions based on them) are limited to what Israel can get away with. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And to her <i>dis</i>credit, pushing that envelope appears to be exactly what Israel does, consistently. This latest altercation is a suitable example, where Israel killed over 2000 Gazans, and displaced over a quarter million, mostly civilians [18]. Even if we take the most favorable estimates to Israel cited by the IDF, over half were civilians and nearly 25% children, and they hit UN shelters whose positions they were alerted to many times. They even shelled a house killing a family related to a hero decorated by Israel for saving Jews during WW2 (clearly no terrorists there) [19]. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Did they intend to kill/maim/displace all of these civilians? Was that their specific goal? Probably not, but they held the initiative and did not have to engage in the acts that made such things a possibility. Since they went ahead with such actions, that means their intention (at best) was to achieve military objectives regardless of cost to civilians, except where hurting civilians would bring actual repercussions. It may very well be that the Israeli military doesn't seek opportunities to kill civilians, but the results look a heck of a lot like they don't care much if they do. And the sad truth is indifference to others in the pursuit of one's ambitions can lead to just as much cruelty and injustice as intentionally malevolent acts.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sam also gave a complete skip on the subject of collective punishment. Whether or not Israel's current military activity constitutes collective punishment, Israel has openly engaged in such acts against the Palestinians, particularly razing houses and destroying agriculture [20]. Collective punishment inherently targets innocent individuals. Perhaps such acts are not designed to kill, but they have destroyed lives and livelihoods. That these kinds of "punishments" happen to coincide with and aid Israeli (extremist?) designs for the region should raise additional red flags. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In fact, the Israeli government just announced a major land seizure that would support settlement growth in the West Bank, with their only explanation being that it is a "response" to the killing of the three Israeli teens months ago [21]. This is despite the fact that they pinned that on Hamas, which led to the operations in Gaza which one might consider more than sufficient as a "response". This appears much like a government version of the "price tag" attacks by settlers, who while describing their acts as "responses" openly admit are collective punishment and support their ultimate goal which is to remove Palestinians [22]. This raises questions for Sam's original statement that settlements would be moot in a one-state solution. How would that be the case, when the settlers would still intend to continue their expansion to the exclusion of Palestinians?</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, given what Israel has already done under intense public scrutiny, it is hard to accept Sam's glowing answer on what Israel would do if it was allowed to do anything it wanted. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s3">Alternatively, we might look at what Israelis say about the Palestinians in order to better gauge true intent</span>. In his dialogue with Andrew, Sam admits some Israelis do suggest ethnic cleansing and even genocide [3]. His only response is to suggest (not prove) through a Rorschach style hypothetical that such ideas are held by a minority of Israelis. It is not clear how that thought experiment undercuts the fact that some Israelis can or do hold genocidal intentions (even if less quantitatively). How does that not reflect on the moral character of Israel when these people hold high ranking positions? That means they can't be fringe elements, right? </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is the fact that Israel has the physical capacity to do what it wants with Palestinians, that creates a greater need in divining her purposes (immediate and longterm) in order to assess and deal with (i.e. criticize, punish) its actions towards Palestinians. A few high placed extremists in that government (or aggressive minorities shielded by the government) have the ability to cause more damage in time through military/economic/social policy than thousands of extremists on the other side limited to guns, rockets, and bombs.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><i><b>3) Palestinian intentions are not so clear cut. </b></i></u></span></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sam and Jerry's main argument for the nature of Palestinian intentions appears to be a guilt by association fallacy. I am not disputing their idea that militant Islamic organizations such as IS have anti-Israel or fully genocidal intentions. While Hamas is not one and the same as these other groups (who have said as much themselves [23]), I am willing to agree that their long term intentions are similar enough to be treated as indistinguishable for this specific debate. The problem is that Sam and Jerry routinely treat the Palestinians as if synonymous with these militant organizations. It is likely Sam would point to passages where he explicitly states that not all Palestinians are militant extremists, or hold such extreme views. However after sufficient "buttering" all of them are.:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"<b>What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel</b><span class="s3"> if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, </span><b>they have told us what they would do.</b><span class="s3"> For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to </span><b>believe the worst about a group like Hamas</b><span class="s3">, even when it declares the worst of itself… </span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s3">…There is every reason to believe that </span><b>the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel </b>if they could<span class="s3">. </span><b>Would every Palestinian support genocide?</b><span class="s3"> </span><b>Of course not. But vast numbers of them—</b>and of <b>Muslims throughout the world</b><span class="s3">—would.</span></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">…Again,</span><span class="s4" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b> I realize that not all Palestinians support Hamas</b></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. Nor am I discounting the degree to which the occupation, along with collateral damage suffered in war, has fueled Palestinian rage. </span><span class="s4" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>But Palestinian terrorism (and Muslim anti-Semitism)</b></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is what has made peaceful coexistence thus far impossible.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">…Yes, <span class="s4"><b>I know that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do</b></span> to have brought them to power. Hamas is not a fringe group...</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">…<span class="s4"><b>The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone</b></span>. Killing women and children is part of the plan… [1][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jerry's post on Sam's original essay emphasizes this same connection, and so our "knowing" the intentions of Palestinians [24].</span></div>
<div class="p7" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"It is now clear that <b>Palestine will sanction only a solution that will destroy Israel</b>—by insisting on the “right of return” that would <b>flood Israel with Palestinians and turn it into an Arab state</b>... </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">… My take, which you’ll know if you’re a regular, is that <b>the sworn intention of Palestine as a nation is to destroy Israel as a nation</b>.This is no secret, nor is it a matter of dispute. If you doubt it, I strongly urge you to <b>read the Hamas Charter...</b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Do you think that Hamas isn’t serious</b> about their own charter? And remember that <b>the Palestinian Authority is now allied with Hamas</b>.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <b>extreme exponents of Islam, as seen in Hamas</b> and even more radical groups, <b>want nothing more than the imposition of their faith on the entire world, and the total extirpation of the Jews.</b> [24][my emphasis]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As can be seen in the emphasized portions, not only does Jerry engage in linking Palestinians to militant Islam through Hamas, but also treats a possible <i>democratic</i> loss of power by Jewish Israelis to Arabs as nearly synonymous with ethnic cleansing and genocide! That last point further underscores Sam's lack of familiarity with the who's and why's behind the nonexistence of a one-state solution. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s3">Contrary to claims made by Sam and Jerry, t</span>he Palestinians as a whole do not hold a dogmatic Islamic genocidal agenda. In fact, there are even Xian Palestinians, making their contention that Palestinian intentions equal militant Islamic intentions appear painfully ignorant [25].<span class="s2"> </span>It is true that Hamas and other (even more militant) groups exist within the Palestinian territories and are made up of Palestinians. It is also true that Palestinians elected Hamas into power (in a single election where the other major party was in disgrace, thanks in part to Israel). Those facts do not signify that the totality of Palestinian interests can be found within the Hamas charter or its methods, just as the election of George Bush (2x) did not indicate that the interests of all US citizens could be found within the statements and actions of neocons. It was an election, under specific circumstances. The violence required by Hamas to stay in power, and the fact that they do not control the West Bank, suggests equating the Palestinians (as a whole) with Hamas is deeply flawed [26]. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is also disingenuous to suggest that a joining between Fatah's Palestinian Authority (PA) with Hamas in a unity government acts as some sort of alliance toward militant Islamic goals. After their repeated failure to make a coalition work and the blood spilled between the two for control it is clearly a product of temporal political expedience (if nothing else to stop killing Palestinians). As it is, PA's Mahmoud Abbas stated that they remained committed to a two-state-solution [27]. And it is only Benjamin Netanyahu who forced the false dilemma of peace with Israel, or peace with Hamas. Intriguingly Israel itself uncovered a recent plot by Hamas to stage a coup against the PA in the West Bank indicating they are not one and the same [28]. Moving beyond evidence, as a matter of logic alone, one is forced to ask why it must be seen as the PA abandoning its goals, rather than Hamas. And if sharing power means alliance with the most extreme group's goals, what does that suggest about the Israeli government which contains parties of Jewish extremists? </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I hope it is clear then that Sam and Jerry's line of reasoning linking the Palestinians as a whole (or even a majority) to the intentions of Hamas, much less to more militant Islamic organizations like Islamic State, is severely flawed.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But let's assume for the moment that a vast majority of Palestinians have at least sympathetic feelings toward such militancy, and are willing to allow the targeting of civilians or the possibility of gratuitous civilian casualties. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sam argues that when Israel inflicts massively disproportionate civilian casualties it should be chalked up to their "brutalization" [1,2]. Israelis have been made brutal by their circumstances. Inexplicably he does not argue that same sort of understanding for the Palestinians. Have Palestinians not been brutalized, enduring warfare as well as daily hardships that average Israelis do not have to experience? </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is not to argue we get into bean-counting the infliction or experience of suffering on each side. The point is that if Sam can recognize that brutal conditions can set people into mindsets and actions which are themselves brutal, it would be useful to spread that insight to all players in this conflict.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To read Sam and Jerry, it is as if the Palestinians showed up on Israel's doorstep out of nowhere with some ideological grudge against Israel, or Jews as a whole, and that's it. The fact is that after being disenfranchised, the Palestinians have been living in incredibly poor conditions for decades. Their ability to move and live within their own areas are heavily controlled by Israel, and direct interactions with the outside world severely limited. These long term "refugee camps" have been likened to open air prisons, depriving them of any credible sense of autonomy or responsibility. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is no wonder then that the tone and nature of what passes for Palestinian government often resembles the volatile power structures found within prisons. By nature of the system they are forced to live in, criminal and violent factions are more likely to thrive and gain power. Well meaning people would be forced to become harder, more ruthless to protect themselves from thuggish elements, as well as learning to skirt legal restrictions to provide for themselves (especially under blockade). And it is not like innocent people have the option to simply move away from these pressures. In that trapped, humiliating environment it seems likely that some of the most radical, violent, racist elements would find support among its general population.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With this in mind, it is a bit of blaming the victim to compare (and demand sympathy for) the actions and stated ambitions of an established, functional government that enjoys a normal standard of living and overwhelming military capability with the actions and fever-dream rhetoric of splintered organizations that claw their way to power within what amounts to a crippling prison compound overseen by that same government. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One is reminded of the saying "created sick, then commanded to be well." If Israel wants a better set of organizations to deal with (less radicalization), perhaps it should rethink the brutal living conditions they have chosen to set on the Palestinians. It is argued this is necessary for Israel's security, but (ignoring legal and moral arguments against collective punishment) lowering their quality of life is unlikely to produce less aggressive intentions or behaviors. Given that it can do what it wants, Israel should arguably set the conditions that allow for the flourishing of qualities that it would like to see in their neighbors, and seek out partners which could undercut (by populism not bullets) factions like Hamas. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This point is reinforced by a poll of Palestinian opinions that Jerry discusses in his latest essay on the conflict [29, 30]. It suggests that the war in Gaza has shifted sentiments away from moderate elements in the PA towards Hamas. While ignoring the obvious fact that (particularly pre-war) Palestinian support for Hamas was not all consuming, Jerry uses this agreeably disappointing shift in Palestinian interests towards Hamas and violent action as a retroactive justification for his Palestinian = Hamas argument.:</span></div>
<div class="p7" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Some readers have maintained that Hamas doesn’t represent a majority of Palestinians, even in Gaza. That doesn’t seem to be the case: Hamas is a big favorite among <i>all </i>Palestinians, even more so in the West Bank! (Note that residents of both Gaza and the West Bank were surveyed.)[29]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p8" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Other than the observation that Hamas's handling of the war with Israel, in contrast to the PA, has led to an unprecedented shift in their favor, Jerry's analysis is a serious over-reach from those statistics. Indeed, there is not much discussion of statistics contrary to the genocidal intentions put forward as inherent to Hamas (62% favor popular nonviolent resistance? 24% a one state-solution?). His post makes it sound like he was right all along. This is the exact wrong message to take from these statistics which suggest that Israeli strategy is making things worse.:</span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Findings of this special Gaza War poll highlight dramatic changes in public attitudes regarding major issues. It goes without saying that the war was the major driver behind these changes. As expected, and as we saw in previous instances during and immediately after Israeli wars with Hamas, findings show a spike in the popularity of Hamas and its leaders and a major decline in the popularity of Fatah and president Abbas. But, as in previous cases, these changes might be temporary and things might revert in the next several months to where they were before the war.[30]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><i><b>4) Intentions - means = fantasy. </b></i></u></span></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The potential for one's enemies to carry out intentions is an important criterion when judging the legitimacy of an armed response. That's because capacity to actualize intentions is what separates plans from fantasies. Otherwise, Sam and Jerry's argument, based solely on intentions, justifies the paranoid's threat, "If you dare dream of killing me, you better wake up and apologize or I get to kill you, and anyone that gets in the way can have a piece of the action!"</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Proportionality is the next important criteria. When Hamas began firing rockets, it is obvious that Israel had a right to respond in some way. That is not the question. But were those rockets really intended to wipe out Israel? That was a physical impossibility, so suggesting we take into account Hamas's theoretical longterm genocidal intentions is ridiculous when clearly these rockets were intended to do no such thing. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That there was little chance of their inflicting mass casualties at all, means the nature of Israel's return fire, which clearly would (and did) result in mass civilian casualties, was grossly disproportionate. It may not have been intended to kill innocent people, but with the knowledge that it could cause such damage when it was not necessary makes it blatantly negligent. Israel's moral failing then was not genocidal intent, but callous indifference in pursuit of military objectives.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That doesn't make Israel THE bad guys, but it definitely makes them a crucial group (in this moment) to criticize regarding errant methods. Demanding sympathy for disproportionate attacks and its inherent collateral damage, based on the fantasy hypotheticals and impotent attacks of one's enemies, is something which is not necessary and, if anything, counterproductive to reducing or eliminating such fantasies and future attacks.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><i><b>5) We don't have to choose between the two. </b></i></u></span></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Does that mean I am arguing we should side with Hamas? The Palestinians? Unfortunately the nature of Sam and Jerry's narrative traps us into the previously mentioned false dilemma of having to choose between Israel and Hamas (arguably not the Palestinians). </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As an outsider evaluating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I see no reason that we should have to choose a "side." They could both be "wrong". Perhaps one is more "wrong" than the other, or has more people doing more wrong things (I am not in any sense arguing moral equivalence). None of that prevents us from criticizing them independently for what they get wrong, and lauding them when they get something right. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Contrary to Sam and Jerry's script, my position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that it is possible to step beyond "us and them" and choose a third side, the side of peace. That is even if we happen to prefer the lifestyle, or sympathize with the plight of, one group more than the other. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If peace is desired in that conflict, it would seem to me that the role of outsiders (particularly public intellectuals) must be to stop feeding any self-defeating emotions (even where wholly valid) and instead reinforce those that build toward a practical, viable future. We must be above this situation, to keep those involved fixed on a real goal, like someone guiding moths away from the flame. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Indeed I would raise the question if atheists, skeptics, scientists, etc who are not directly involved can't aim for something more useful than moral name calling, or choosing tribal associations? I realize this would be hard. It is easy to get sucked into the very real emotional issues inherent to a decades long tragedy. I have admitted my own attachments in noting the compelling nature of Andrew and Freddie's essays. But we of all people should know that this is not going to help us find solutions for the future. It is a diversion of attention and energy. </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Could we not frame and limit our narratives of the conflict, using our moral compasses to seek out desired moral states that we would like to occupy, moral actions that we would like to be synonymous with, rather than finding which way to point our finger at the bad guy? For example, if Israel does indeed hold the "moral high ground" we might ask if any specific act was consistent with or helped maintain that position, could another act have improved that position? </span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And perhaps most important in a conflict like this (unless you plan to kill everyone on the other side) did this act raise elements of your enemy to higher ground than they occupied before? After all if you want peace through negotiation that is exactly what must be fostered, everyone moving toward higher moral ground. This is the kind of talk (particularly with such landscape-like terminology) I had hoped to see from Sam, but was sadly disappointed.</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps I am mistaken, but isn't it possible to switch moral dialogue from a dead-end blame-game to "yes these people did this or that, <i>but...</i> over here is the viable future we can all work toward and the things we can do from now on to create it"? In other words use morality, like science, to solve problems?</span></div>
<div class="p1" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">lll. Western nations and militant Islam</span></b></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thankfully western nations are not in a position of having to settle on a division of shared territory with militant Islamic organizations like IS. We also do not have an angry captive population which we must care for, fight, and negotiate with all at the same time. That means our narrative is completely different from, and we don't need to end up in the same state as, the Israelis and Palestinians. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This does not mean things will be easy. We might avoid moral name-calling, but we don't have a choice regarding tribal associations. I am part of a tribe supporting limited, secular representative government, and on top of that a hedonistic atheist who promotes expansion of freedom rather than allowing restriction to the dictates of singular cultures. Militant Islam is opposed to this and I would not fare well or long in an Islamic State. That means I need to champion within my community the qualities and actions that are likely to achieve the preferred goals of my tribe, which includes long term peace and prosperity. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That is why, more than Sam's errors regarding Israel-Palestine, I was deeply shocked and disappointed by his grandiose "clash of civilizations" rhetoric.:</span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way.[1]"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is possible that strains of militant Islam will rise to power and be with us for generations. Or they may not. Either way, one does not need such suspiciously glorified predictions of longterm conflict to confront the extremist movements currently gaining power. One consistent problem created by such an outlook is that it artificially magnifies the problem while perpetuating the search for an enemy to fight, as opposed to keeping a cool head and identifying friends or willing partners (we don't always have to like each other) to create solutions. With that fatalistic mindset, we miss opportunities to change the environment and so grow "our side" to defuse situations. The results of failing to do so are clearly visible in all the missed opportunities by Israel, and yes the Palestinians too. </span></div>
<div class="p10" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Right now, like Israel, we control the initiative and overwhelming military capabilities. We should be using this position to avoid using (where possible) military solutions, which we already know spread the seeds and strengthen the roots of the problem we face. While a serious concern to be sure, militant Islam is not even the "greatest" concern facing our societies. These organizations are a regional threat and not an existential one. Unless we really drop the ball, they are unlikely to become more than that any time soon. Indeed, in recently denouncing philosophy and chemistry as "opposed to God" the Islamic State has just declared war on an enemy they will surely never beat, and in this case the enemy of my enemy actually is my friend [31]. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's be honest, the story Sam is plugging isn't new. It's been with us from the beginning, and has always been a footnote to the real history of human achievement. All of it low points dragging our energies away from peace and prosperity.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sam says it's "the great story of our time"? It's a shit read if you ask me. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To my mind the "great story" of our time is the discovery of DNA and the technologies allowing us to understand and manipulate genetic material to improve our lives, it is the recent advances in neuroscience which have greatly expanded our knowledge of the brain and its connection with thought and behavior, it is the work which has allowed everyone to see further into the Universe than anyone before (in space and time), it is the large-scale efforts allowing us to detect and manipulate the smallest particles of matter and antimatter, it is the unparalleled advance in human communication which has removed prior physical limits for the spread of information, it is our increased computational capacity allowing us to analyze data and express ourselves in ways never before possible. F</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">or the first time in history we have voyaged</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> beyond the confines of our home planet, and hopefully will again before I am gone.</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All of these narratives are the ones that are changing the course of human life as we speak. It is an exciting time to be around, to witness such a dramatic change in our capacity to understand and control the world in which we live. These are our great stories. </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">P.S. ---</span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It seems a bit sad for someone to be distracted by and engrossed in the same old ethnic and religious hostilities. If for personal reasons someone prefers apocalyptic, all-or-nothing narratives driven by sudden, horrific violence, such that one must be recommend as the "great story" of our time… well… </span></div>
<div class="p3" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I vote for <i>Game of Thrones</i><span class="s3">. </span></span></div>
<div class="p10" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p6" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>References:</b></span></div>
<div class="p10" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p11" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/hamas-kidnaps-and-kills-three-israeli-teenagers-palestine-fires-rockets-at-civilians/">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/hamas-kidnaps-and-kills-three-israeli-teenagers-palestine-fires-rockets-at-civilians/</a></span></div>
<div class="p12" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p13" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="s5"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/more-on-the-kidnapping-and-murder-of-israeli-teenagers-and-now-a-palestinian-one/"><span class="s6">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/more-on-the-kidnapping-and-murder-of-israeli-teenagers-and-now-a-palestinian-one/</span></a></span></span></div>
<div class="p12" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p11" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/two-pieces-on-journalism-in-the-israel-palestine-conflict/">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/two-pieces-on-journalism-in-the-israel-palestine-conflict/</a></span></div>
<div class="p14" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/my-reply.html">http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/my-reply.html</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5) <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/ref-5-my-reply-to.html">http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/ref-5-my-reply-to.html</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7) <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/why-sam-harris-wont-criticize-israel/">http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/31/why-sam-harris-wont-criticize-israel/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">8) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/making-sense-of-gaza</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">9) <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=gazing+at+gaza">http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=gazing+at+gaza</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">10) <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/18/israel-is-singled-out-by-israels-defenders/">http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/18/israel-is-singled-out-by-israels-defenders/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">11) <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/20/palestinians-live-what-israelis-fear/">http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/20/palestinians-live-what-israelis-fear/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">12) <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/21/final-thoughts-on-israel-and-palestine/">http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/21/final-thoughts-on-israel-and-palestine/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p17" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="s7">13) </span>The Moral Landscape (2010), by Sam Harris, Free Press</span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">14) <a href="http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape">http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">15) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution#Arguments_for_and_against">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution#Arguments_for_and_against</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">16) <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-to-haaretz-two-state-solution-or-israel-is-done-for-1.234201">http://www.haaretz.com/news/olmert-to-haaretz-two-state-solution-or-israel-is-done-for-1.234201</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">17) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CylGZGAg4Fg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CylGZGAg4Fg</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">18) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel-Gaza_conflict">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel-Gaza_conflict</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">19) <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28814555">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28814555</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">20) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment#In_the_Israeli.2FPalestinian_conflict">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment#In_the_Israeli.2FPalestinian_conflict</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">21)<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/31/us-palestinians-israel-settlement-idUSKBN0GV0D020140831">http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/31/us-palestinians-israel-settlement-idUSKBN0GV0D020140831</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">22) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMwohMhP10">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMwohMhP10</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">23)<a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/8/25/6064467/no-netanyahu-hamas-is-not-isis-isis-is-not-hamas">http://www.vox.com/2014/8/25/6064467/no-netanyahu-hamas-is-not-isis-isis-is-not-hamas</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">24)<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/sam-harris-on-the-israelpalestine-conflict/">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/sam-harris-on-the-israelpalestine-conflict/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">25) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christians">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Christians</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">27) <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27128902">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27128902</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">28) <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-foiled-hamas-plan-for-coup-against-pa-in-west-bank/">http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-it-foiled-hamas-plan-for-coup-against-pa-in-west-bank/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">29) <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/a-depressing-poll-from-palestine/">http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/a-depressing-poll-from-palestine/</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">30) <a href="http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/489">http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/489</a></span></div>
<div class="p16" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p15" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">31)<a href="http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/08/16/ISIS-calls-for-an-Islamic-curriculum-in-Syria-s-Raqa.html?ba">http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/08/16/ISIS-calls-for-an-Islamic-curriculum-in-Syria-s-Raqa.html?ba</a></span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-24478247277833119052014-07-24T14:37:00.000-07:002014-09-06T02:26:53.348-07:00Notes from a Moral Prize Fight<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRKk8jEuJmqA0iV73pc16m9hdWqcVy1vvzw6teFQcOg-kTdBNCx2cP87BDPa6FyA1MSwMuOHcwunoxS4zIFxwfOhfqHUw9ps6BgvmSOoga2j83x6C_B4nDLp3jgj2VCI96wka-Wfgve8U/s1600/mendoza_32-530x317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRKk8jEuJmqA0iV73pc16m9hdWqcVy1vvzw6teFQcOg-kTdBNCx2cP87BDPa6FyA1MSwMuOHcwunoxS4zIFxwfOhfqHUw9ps6BgvmSOoga2j83x6C_B4nDLp3jgj2VCI96wka-Wfgve8U/s1600/mendoza_32-530x317.jpg" height="382" width="640" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last year, Sam Harris announced he was seeking challengers for an intellectual prize fight [1]. The reason, he claimed, was that he had yet to see any serious arguments against the moral theory described in his book The Moral Landscape (TML). While detractors might question his eyesight, his claim is likely the swaggering bravado of the cocky prize-fighter who (having cleared sparring partners during training) boast their undefeated status.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like all prize-fights, a prize was offered; two thousand for the selected essay and twenty thousand if its author managed to put his undefeated theory down for the count. Strangely, essays were restricted to 1000 words. The logic given was that if his moral theory was easy to beat, someone should be able to do it in 1000 words. That sounded like a self-proclaimed world champ requiring anyone thinking they can actually take him, to beat him in the first minute with an arm tied behind their back. In any case, he eased doubts about this limit by assuring everyone the essay would simply act as opening to a refereed dialogue, with increased freedom of movement for the contestant. Fair enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is probably where honest authors should sidetrack slightly to admit they were among the contestants. Having just written a 40+ page critique of The Moral Landscape (and looking for a venue to place it) the timing of Harris's challenge was perfect. But there were some troubling aspects about this challenge. First, entering such a contest might lend credibility to Harris's claims that no serious criticism had yet been offered. Second, by selecting one essay as a "winner", the contest might create an illusion that the chosen essay would contain the only remaining challenge (or "best" challenge) to his moral theory. Finally, there was that galling part about having to limit one's arguments on a complex issue to 1000 words. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite reservations, the combination of prize-money, potential fame, and his assurance of a fair fight (further dialogue) did its magic and an essay was entered. The reader is free to speculate which element played the greater role (and may likely be right). But the necessity of the last point in determining the go ahead should not be in question.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This June, Sam Harris announced that a winning essay had been selected (out of several hundred entries) by philosopher-cum-referee Russell Blackford [2]. The author of that essay turned out to be Ryan Born, which freed the author of this essay to observe the coming battle from a respectable distance, while enjoying his latest helping of humble pie. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Casting a critical eye on Born's opening moves (as beaten rivals are likely to do), the essay came off a bit jargon heavy, with blows centered on peripheral claims rather than vital points. Still, it would tweak Harris's nose a bit, and the author seemed to have enough skills to carry on a solid fight once the two began to really mix it up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then the bell rang, and the house lights went up. Harris stepped to the center of the ring and announced that contrary to the stated program there would be no refereed dialogue after all [3]. The explanation given was that they just could not make it work for some reason. Why they could not move this debate to a different time, use a different format, or pull in substitutes for Born or Blackford remains a mystery. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What came next (which will be described in a minute) was supposedly agreed to by Born and Blackford. It is unclear if it was based on elements of an extended dialogue they actually had, or not. If it reflected an actual back and forth with Born, then the initial assessment of his prowess was clearly an overestimate. If it was not, and it did not seem to be based on word usage, then it does not seem to have been fair play to Born or other contestants. Were Born and Blackford really ok with what emerged as a replacement for dialogue?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What followed his announcement, ladies and gentlemen, was a surprise exhibition that (to this reporter's jaded eyes) bordered on the grotesque. Having cleared the ring for any chance of rebuttal, not to mention judgment by an impartial referee, Harris launched into a sort of shadow-boxing routine. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With no sense of humility in sight, Harris let us know how Born never really laid a hand on him, and even if he did it couldn't be a real body blow. This last point was arguably valid, but only for the opening essay, which may not have been true in any continuing dialogue (the manifest reason for a dialogue). This of course exposed a weakness in Blackford's described criteria for selecting Born's essay. Had he chosen an essay focusing on essential components of the moral landscape theory, Harris might not have been able to try this kind of stunt (at least so easily). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Apparently the virtue of sportsmanlike conduct fails to register on his landscape map, as Harris's showboating lasted many 1000s of words longer than he had allowed any contestant, including Born to whom he was supposedly responding. Of course he arguably needed the extra wording to move beyond Born's arguments to explain how he could have licked the rest of us too. This whole demonstration included handy stage props such as red herrings and straw men. Perhaps not surprising, he pulled out one of his favorite straw men, David Hume which even in TML never looked much like the original. Still, this allowed him to extend his victories via shadows and straw to some of the most heavy-hitting theorists in history. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, Harris dropped the mic and left the ring with these parting words…</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"… I appreciated the chance to clarify my views, and I hope readers have found this exchange useful."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is impossible to know if readers found anything useful in a two part exchange. If this were a real prize-fight perhaps an audible grumble would have emerged from disappointed spectators as they shuffled out. Perhaps some, feeling a bit cheated after an abrupt cancellation and no raincheck offered, would have thrown a chair or rushed the ring to tear up the joint. Well this is the internet and it was an intellectual prize-fight, not to mention free. So there's not a lot anyone can or will do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But it can be stated, without reservation, that at least one contestant within the audience (who had invested plenty of time and hard work) found nothing useful in this obviously lopsided so-called "exchange", except perhaps fleeting amusement that Jonathon Haidt's prediction came true [4]. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was particularly hard to swallow the line "I appreciated the chance to clarify my views." Like the only real issue was that critics were a bit confused or mistaken? Perhaps he did not understand, but people did not enter the contest to give him the opportunity to clear up their misconceptions, they came for the opportunity to clear up his misconceptions. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The effect produced by such an unsavory mass of gratitude sticking in one’s craw is the distinctly unpleasant choking sensation of having just been conned, misrepresented, and dissembled to (in short, used) by a guy that wrote books on morality and lying.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is likely that some readers will accuse this report of being a bit melodramatic (guilty as charged! this is literature). Some may go further to suggest that the reporting is biased against Harris due to the author having "lost" the contest. That is, well… that is not entirely true…</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Imagine if you will, ladies and gentlemen, that an Intelligent Design (ID) theorist just did the same thing. They put out a brand new 200+ page book outlining their latest theory showing how science "proves" evolution to be useless in explaining the existence of some organ(ism). Said theorist offers a challenge to all "evolutionists" allowing them a chance to debunk this theory, only they have to do it in 1000 words or less (if ID is so ridiculous it must be that easy). He does promise the winner will have a chance for an open, extended, and moderated debate on the issue. Yet after printing one of the essays, with a judge's report stating there are other arguments not within the essay, the IDiot produces a 4000 word monologue purportedly addressing the strongest arguments against his case. At the same time it is announced there will be no debate after all (just couldn't do it!), while offering thanks to everyone for allowing the author to "clarify" their position.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Would anyone in the atheist, scientific, or skeptic community find anything reputable in that exercise? Or would it be denounced as ridiculous? Outrageous? Beyond the bounds of reasonable conduct for a rational or scientific debate? Would it in fact look like the publicity seeking exercise that many would have argued it was to begin with?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is left to the reader to wrestle with that comparison and conundrum. It is left in your gentle hands, dear reader, to feed Harris his slice of humble pie (or not).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the very least, further proclamations of "undisputed" might reasonably be met with raspberries and a few rotten tomatoes. The idea that no one has raised significant challenges to his theory, or that they have all been dealt with cannot be taken seriously. After all, Harris just walked out of his own challenge, leaving 400+ entries with potentially all of their arguments unaddressed. Inexplicably, he didn't even manage the simple (and promised ) task of staying in the ring with the first author!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In walking off his own stage, Harris may have hoped to put this fiasco behind him, but things should not go so easy for his so-called "clarification". Indeed, one contestant is stepping back from the departing crowd and charging the ring. He is grabbing this "clarified" moral landscape with clear intent to methodically, analytically (and of course figuratively) pummel it into submission or pieces. After all, the show must go on...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>P.S. --- Hopefully it was clear to readers that this was meant as satire, a tongue-in-cheek review of the Moral Landscape Challenge from the vantage point of a journalist covering a prize-fight (which after all is what it was). It shows how ethics is often handled in reality, through literature, using rhetorical or emotional devices to "shame the man" rather than logical analysis, though some logic underlies its charges. For a serious, analytical review aimed at "discrediting the arguments" Harris made within his clarification you can go to <a href="http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/">Scientia Salon</a> which has been gracious enough to publish it! </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notes ---</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1) http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2) http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3) http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4) http://www.thisviewoflife.com/index.php/magazine/articles/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-82030088183771342452014-06-05T14:03:00.000-07:002014-09-06T02:27:29.637-07:00Reset the Net to actualize freedom of thought by securing privacy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1rkqoqK9o83shpNfuIDVkFvEjWbNKXHkTptZ05-djfOGm6H1AZB6yzYT5EVNSoSihi2NsphhCybGV9KP0a0iPTf7GzBN4p_viPRMGb60hMOuZxDhfHNyPwQOiEDfZcE0tgeUgoWEQXcw/s1600/banner-take-back.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1rkqoqK9o83shpNfuIDVkFvEjWbNKXHkTptZ05-djfOGm6H1AZB6yzYT5EVNSoSihi2NsphhCybGV9KP0a0iPTf7GzBN4p_viPRMGb60hMOuZxDhfHNyPwQOiEDfZcE0tgeUgoWEQXcw/s1600/banner-take-back.png" height="67" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I just found out about a campaign starting today, June 5th, called <i><a href="https://www.resetthenet.org/">Reset the Net</a></i>. It's a bit late (in the day) to get everything set up on my site in time but it is something I want to recognize and encourage. Unlike most campaigns it is not about asking you to send in money for someone else to fix a problem. It is about all of us taking a moment to protect that which is most dear to us: our privacy. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ending mass surveillance by governments can be achieved through the electoral process, by voting in dedicated representatives to executive, legislative, and judicial offices. But before we get to enjoy the fruits of that lengthy process, there is something else we can do here and now. Users and developers of the internet (at all levels) can begin securing the spaces they control, plugging the leaks that government agencies exploit in their misguided attempt to save us by monitoring everything we do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is simply a matter of finding and installing the apps, programs, whatever and installing them. The groups involved are attempting to gather these things together, so that it is easy to get what you need without having to hunt all over the place. Also, they are networking with companies that make the internet run to get them to put them in place on (or as part of) their systems (streamlining the process for you).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Check out the site and consider taking the pledge and (the second part is more important) committing yourself to secure your corner of the internet. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not computer tech savvy, I am a very busy person, and I am also quite lazy in the little free time I have. But I know this is part of the solution. A major part. As this technology becomes popular, and mainstream it will become the new normal and so easier to use. It will also reduce our dependence on the government to police itself. So I intend to make the pledge and start taking steps to secure the (rather) small corner I hold.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVQYgoducWTLnVpeeh-EcYT5jzDMRCwQ3zAnb4HnMNQv6lDdm-BtKvjv9ZVd8nYaRGBDJVEgUDI1E3pNlpgu9Z7paITCT4o5RHJ47u7jmdHLcdwq2KguFBvheOztqouDCCxmfNaegjPwc/s1600/banner-wide.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVQYgoducWTLnVpeeh-EcYT5jzDMRCwQ3zAnb4HnMNQv6lDdm-BtKvjv9ZVd8nYaRGBDJVEgUDI1E3pNlpgu9Z7paITCT4o5RHJ47u7jmdHLcdwq2KguFBvheOztqouDCCxmfNaegjPwc/s1600/banner-wide.png" height="36" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-13365311015154743942014-05-30T02:56:00.000-07:002014-09-06T02:27:52.633-07:00Shouldn't we all "man up"?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31qnyKtLZik9Z0R5ErUoT2JHbQGy8tyGcNPiU0Q-fg2f0eDXf35dlOMQ3KOJIcs0Dl7NB1-PACVP5Dorh_8AU1ysp-6YShi093ndrwQeSefCeCyc2YLDVbz2XAcRT3xTNu7zLn0bMkU0/s1600/h_50680341.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31qnyKtLZik9Z0R5ErUoT2JHbQGy8tyGcNPiU0Q-fg2f0eDXf35dlOMQ3KOJIcs0Dl7NB1-PACVP5Dorh_8AU1ysp-6YShi093ndrwQeSefCeCyc2YLDVbz2XAcRT3xTNu7zLn0bMkU0/s1600/h_50680341.jpg" height="425" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
Secretary of State <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X_vTTYz5pw">John Kerry responded</a> to a recent televised interview of Edward Snowden, by attacking Snowden's moral character. It was nice to see a public official acknowledge the depth and complexity of moral decision-making in their criticism rather than using simplified moral concepts such as "evil" or "wrong". In this case, Kerry explicitly called into question Snowden's honesty, loyalty, sense of justice, and bravery. The last one <a href="https://news.vice.com/article/john-kerrys-latest-snowden-comments-are-moronic-offensive-and-dangerous">hit a nerve in some quarters</a> due to his calling on Snowden to "man up", but terminology is not what concerned me. I am more concerned with the accuracy of his analysis... or should I say the extent of his analysis? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Honesty. </b> </i>I think it is undeniable that Snowden acted dishonestly, and he would admit this himself. I mean for all intents and purposes he did. He worked in an intelligence agency which by its very nature depends on dishonesty. If he was in fact a spy, then he was explicitly trained in duplicity. The very concept of intelligence agencies (aka spy agencies) is that honesty as a virtue can be sacrificed for other goals. In a sense the ends justify the means. Once that motto is accepted, and one employs and trains people in such a capacity, it is a bit naive and hypocritical to express outrage when such agents act dishonestly. The only pertinent question is whether his dishonesty extends to the information he has produced to the public. Is this disinformation? So far the answer appears to be a resounding no. He is allowing it to be vetted, and their substance has already forced debate and changes in government policy. <br />
<br />
Of course if dishonesty is such an outrage, why should we stop with Snowden? One of the revelations coming from the data he has provided is that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiQ7pRRChCk">James Clapper lied to congress under oath</a>. That is not only dishonest, it is a crime. Yet the administration has not taken him to task for this, morally or legally, nor did it "man up" and take the heat for having allowed such a deception to occur in the first place. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Loyalty </b>(aka patriotism).</i> This sort of walks hand in hand with honesty. Intelligence agencies depend on disloyalty, and promote it wherever they can. Though perhaps that is too cartoonish a charge. Rather they depend on shifting loyalties, promoting the trade-off of one's loyalty to one group or ideal toward another group or ideal. Though they are not adverse to exploiting or promoting blanket disloyalty if they need it. So it is a bit naive and hypocritical to decry its appearance in one of your agents. But the question is if this charge is true about Snowden?<br />
<br />
It seems undeniable that Snowden was disloyal and broke his vows to the organizations of which he was a member. Again, he admits this in full. The point he has made is that these organizations began to act in a way that forced him to choose between his loyalty to them, and the nation they were sworn to protect. When an organization begins to break its own vows, its members are generally freed to choose between a continued commitment to the organization (wherever it goes) or to the initial vows they made. That is certainly a tough call to make. Snowden has made his case that he has remained patriotic to the nation, acting on its behalf, while leaving behind (and acting against) organizations that have themselves broken vows toward the nation and the rights they were supposed to protect. Given the admissions and changes he has already caused, and would not have happened without his revelations, I think the evidence so far is on his side. I for one could use more of the disloyalty he has shown, and less of the disloyalty that the NSA and others in the US government were exposed practicing.<br />
<br />
One further conundrum Kerry posed is whether true patriots ever flee their country. Of course they do. Hasn't the US traditionally embraced exiles and refugees as true patriots, granting them the space and safety they need to enact changes to errant regimes and organizations within their homelands? A more pertinent question is whether those that knuckle under to such regimes and organizations, allowing them to trample their rights, are loyal or patriotic even if they manage the bold feat of merely staying at home?<br />
<br />
<i><b>Justice. </b></i>If it needs repeating, intelligence agencies routinely break laws and promote their agents to bend or break them as needed to achieve specific ends. It should not be surprising, and sounds ridiculous to lament, when such an agent does that very thing. Snowden claims that the organization he was working for had itself begun breaking fundamental legal protections (rights) of US citizens. He felt the ends of rectifying that injustice, called for the lesser injustice regarding broken contracts which called for continued law-breaking against the people he was sworn to protect. <br />
<br />
He has apparently opted to let the importance of his data work on his behalf in the court of public opinion, rather than trusting in the restricted courts owned by the very organization he has accused of criminal activity. Frankly, that would seem to be the wise move.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Bravery/Responsibility</b> </i>(aka "man up"). It is hard to understand this charge. He has owned up to his actions publicly, and is attempting to continue his fight against corruption where he can. What more is expected from anyone? The idea that a brave man puts himself into the hands of the people he accuses of corruption, to be judged by them, is pure fantasy. It is certainly is not the practice of intelligence agencies, regular law enforcement, or the military. That would be rank stupidity. And if anything, it takes a brave person to recognize that in some circumstances discretion is the better part of valor.<br />
<br />
Kerry's challenge is itself an absurdity when the government remains involved with housing "detainees" in Guantanamo, and holding extra-judicial courts (military tribunals). If a nation of millions cannot "man up" enough to face handfuls of individuals on our own soil, in our own system of justice, fully under our control, why should we expect a single person to brave much worse odds?<br />
<br />
It is also the height of hypocrisy to demand an individual's reckless bravery when the US public as a whole is being encouraged to be so afraid of potential attacks that we ought to allow government agencies to infringe on our rights (basically unquestioned and unobserved). Shouldn't we all "man up" and take responsibility for our own security, and preserve our rights to privacy and free speech? Wouldn't a brave, responsible people reject in large measure the need for such organizations as the NSA? Or at the very least, reject the need for their their constant and wholesale monitoring of our communications? <br />
<br />
Let me propose a counter challenge (to the administration and the public at large). It is also a question of character. If we indeed want to instill concepts of honesty, loyalty, justice, and bravery in our society, perhaps we need to reconsider the existence and employment of organizations and procedures that depend and promote the very opposite traits. <br />
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-13879037388828153962014-05-25T14:15:00.000-07:002014-09-06T02:29:26.124-07:00Steven Weinberg versus science-based morality<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi97c4jNCYTGPXaqa6t2cL1Zj4TxQ0GaWthFiFaJy-iQMSeNymbREdlCoe1pABe8KHNx8lOER6M5C3dy4XiqtRVT4H7pbboPM3pTTtaPgKv9y07XCOhoDbtzTjJwsjwDY9JLUyZOq_DrHc/s1600/steven-weinberg-008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi97c4jNCYTGPXaqa6t2cL1Zj4TxQ0GaWthFiFaJy-iQMSeNymbREdlCoe1pABe8KHNx8lOER6M5C3dy4XiqtRVT4H7pbboPM3pTTtaPgKv9y07XCOhoDbtzTjJwsjwDY9JLUyZOq_DrHc/s1600/steven-weinberg-008.jpg" height="240" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2012, a number of well-known scientists and philosophers gathered for a weekend to discuss hot-topics or unresolved issues within naturalism. Basically they were trying to scope out and/or develop a more coherent world-view from a strictly scientific/materialist perspective. The entire series is still available online and worth watching if you missed it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebuve4INdAU">One video</a> is dedicated to their discussion of morality. To my surprise Steven Weinberg, a physicist, presented a solid argument against so-called science-based moral theories. His portion begins about 7 minutes into the video, and he remains pivotal to the remaining discussion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason I found it so surprising is that he is not a philosopher himself, in fact he is usually critical of philosophy, and yet puts forward what I believe to be the most coherent philosophical analysis of morality from a naturalist perspective. What made it more surprising is that other philosophers I have a great respect for (Daniel Dennett and Massimo Piggliucci) did not seem to accept his arguments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In short, Weinberg argues that science is not capable of generating moral "postulates" (rules), and so morality cannot be grounded in science or reason. Science and reason might be used to understand or elucidate the moral beliefs held by oneself or others, but they cannot be used to create or deliver beliefs you do not already have within you. This fits well with Hume's position on morality as I describe in <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/full-response_30.html#chapt1">my reply to Sam Harris</a>. In fact, Weinberg mentions Hume in making his argument. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Weinberg's criticisms effect all normative moral theories, whether consequentialist (results determine the rightness of an act) or non-consequentialist (something is right/wrong independent of results). In response to this criticism, Massimo Piggliuccci introduces a different type of moral theory known as virtue ethics, which he explores in his own work. It differs from the first two moral theories by not focusing on delivering set moral rules regarding actions (simple right/wrong), but deliberating on what kind of life is worth living and so what habits might be useful to get there (virtues). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I became a bit confused with Piggliucci's description of virtue ethics, as he appeared to be claiming that it could be founded in science and reason. I tend to consider myself a virtue ethicist, or some form of such, and do not see how it counters Weinberg's criticisms. If anything as a virtue ethicist, I agree with Weinberg almost completely. Deliberations on a valuable life will rest on personal, subjective, irrational feelings. On a side note, I also disagreed with Piggliucci's equating loyalty with xenophobia or distrust of others. Loyalty is a positive feeling toward something and does not require any negative feeling toward anything else. Usually others (outside the group one holds loyalty to) are treated with indifference and not antipathy. These problems suggests future discussions I would like to have with Piggliucci.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More important, many of the attendees described the existence of an objective moral progress which they attribute to science/reason. While individual rights within legal systems have generally been expanding (though there have been reversals), and there may be decreases in crime as a result of many different societal factors, there is no evidence for an increase in morality among human populations. Even if there was progress, how can this be linked to science and reason when most of the world (including the west) is largely dominated by religious belief? Two of their key markers of moral progress (the rights of racial minorities and a single sexual minority) came at a time of expanding religious and nonscientific thinking within the US. I am not stating this as a defense of religion. I am just pointing out that it is hard to link science and reason to those legal achievements (if one can use law as a sign of moral progress). This would seem to have been more of an emotional or social than rational or empirical journey.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It has been a couple of years since that meeting, and I am interested whether any of the attendees have moved in one direction or other on this topic. Personally, I was delighted to hear Weinberg's account of how he moved from one moral theory to another, before abandoning normative ethics for a more descriptive understanding of human morality. Perhaps some have begun making a similar journey!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3760648017966464425.post-479024995815573632014-04-13T13:08:00.000-07:002014-04-13T13:08:00.326-07:00Against a Moral Landscape<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9cWoGK-GT2bS7JEuosjqZVuDlmbGdFv_EkxLBdwftI4XPRuMRYv31LPeVosw1D4G-dlTu5J-yE4LWeTHtpt9JIPntMQ-hEE5cHUns5NW3_vLDXJUjAqL0biJ48sL7NtBHVn1LPuSI1c8/s1600/harris+book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9cWoGK-GT2bS7JEuosjqZVuDlmbGdFv_EkxLBdwftI4XPRuMRYv31LPeVosw1D4G-dlTu5J-yE4LWeTHtpt9JIPntMQ-hEE5cHUns5NW3_vLDXJUjAqL0biJ48sL7NtBHVn1LPuSI1c8/s1600/harris+book.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm officially opening the site with the "publication" of my <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/full-response_30.html">full response</a> to Dr Sam Harris's book, <b><i>The Moral Landscape</i></b>. Pictured above is my well worn and marked-up copy of said book. While I found the overall concept intriguing, I had severe problems with the details (or lack thereof).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It seemed to me that Harris's intent was not so much about launching a well thought out moral system, but rather to indict moral relativism and multiculturalism (as abettors of religious intolerance). In my response, I deal with both his moral theory and his criticisms of other moral positions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can also check out <a href="http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.nl/p/challenge-essay_19.html">my entry</a> into Harris's essay contest. It contains some of my arguments against the moral system he advances. It wasn't chosen, but that does not mean the points have been refuted by Harris, or can be. I wish the winner of the contest much success in moving Harris toward a more sound position regarding (science and) morality.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />brandholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16925522902235368643noreply@blogger.com0