Author Archives: jbernal

C Rulon: Roman Catholic Church and Emergency Contraception‏

By Charles L. Rulon
Emeritus, Life & Health Sciences
Long Beach City College

Every year in the U.S. over three million unin­tended preg­nancies occur. About 1.3 million end in abor­tions. But with emergency contraceptive pills (EC) taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex the number of un­intended pregnan­cies might actually be cut in half. Thus, the wide­spread easy availability of EC could consti­tute one of the most important advances in birth control in the last 40 years.[i]

Yet, there remains strong religious opposition to EC, mostly from the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican long ago created its own pict­ure of re­ality with all sex being designed by Nature/God for repro­duction in marriage. Any form of sex that does not end in the possibility of pregnancy is, according to the Church, “unnatural, disor­dered and immoral.” The Church’s immense power, coupled with its teach­ings on con­tra­ception, abortion, ho­mo­sexuality and sex in general have strongly influenced the leaders and rulers of entire nations for cen­turies.

A 1991 report by Dr. R. Ravenholt, former director of the Glo­bal Popu­la­tion Pro­gram of the U.S. Agency for In­ter­national Devel­op­ment (1966-1979), said:

“…The current code of si­lence with re­s­pect to iden­ti­fy­ing the main adversary of repro­duc­tive free­dom, the Roman Catholic Church, is fo­men­ting a world disaster analo­gous in scope to that which would have ensued if leaders had fail­ed to identify Rus­sia as the main adversary of demo­cra­tic politi­cal free­dom.”

Ravenholt went on to detail how Catholic bishops and Catholic presidential appointees plan­­ned and largely achieved the sabotage of a num­ber of U.S. family planning programs.[ii]

U.S. bishops continue to be vocal and consistent oppo­nents of EC (plus being opposed to all domestic and inter­national fam­ily planning programs). Also, Vatican officials have aggres­sively used their Church’s of­ficial govern­mental sta­tus (which no other reli­gion has) to block pro­grams and poli­cies that would make contra­cep­tion and EC more ac­cessible in the poor­er parts of the world.

For example:

1994: The third major Overpopu­la­tion and Develop­­­ment Con­fer­ence was held in Cairo, Egypt. Be­cause of the unrelent­ing political efforts of the Catholic Church, the con­fer­ence became bogged down over the role that EC and early abortions should play in fam­ily plan­ning and female repro­ductive health issues. Only a seri­ous watering down of the pro-choice posi­­tion allowed the con­fer­ence to finally con­tinue. “God’s laws are abso­lute,” maintained the Pope. “They cannot be changed by a vote.”[iii]

1998: The Vatican attempted to stop the distribution of EC to those Bos­nian women in Kosovar refu­gee camps who had just been bru­tally raped and had already lost every­thing, including their loved ones. Arch­bishop Flynn referred to those aid workers offering EC to raped women as perpe­tra­tors of vio­lence.[iv]

2007: Leaders of Amnesty Inter­nat­io­nal, a global human rights organi­zation, sup­ported the right of those women in Darfur refuge camps who were brutally gang raped to have access to EC and early abortions. In response, the Vatican sus­pen­d­ed all financial aid to Amnesty International and called upon Catho­lics world­wide to boycott the organization.[v]

Today, there are some 600 Catholic hos­pitals in the U.S. servicing about 50 million patients a year. One-sixth of all admit­tances are to Catholic hospitals. About 80% of these hos­pitals don’t offer EC to those rape victims who are admitted, nor refer them to hospitals that do supply EC. Doctors at Catholic hospitals are often over-ruled by bishops. In recent years a growing number of non-sectarian hospitals and HMOs have been taken over by Catholic health organi­za­tions.[vi]

In addition, the Roman Catholic Church has made it clear that if any govern­men­tal agency attempts to force any of the Church’s over 300,000 health facili­ties for the poor to offer contra­cep­tives, steri­lization proced­ures or EC, the Church would with­draw its vitally need­ed financial sup­port from those fa­cili­ties.

Some final thoughts

Today, most American and Euro­pean Catho­lics pay little atten­tion to their Church’s birth control prohi­bi­tions and are us­ing mod­ern means of con­tra­­cep­tion and EC in about the same mea­sure as are Protes­tant and Jewish couples. Also, as early as 1979 a major poll found that 64% of all Cath­olics felt that the “right of a woman to have an abortion should be left entirely to the woman and her doc­tor.” And by the late 1980s Cath­o­­lic women in the U.S. were actually having abor­tions at a slightly higher rate than were Pro­tes­tants.

Yet, the Vatican continues to insist that we can’t believe in social justice if we also believe in abortion. But since most birth control is far from perfect and humans will always make mistakes, where is the social justice in forcing women to stay pregnant against their will? Where is it written that God wants women to be unwill­ing embryo incubators, obligatory breed­ing machines? Where is the religious wisdom and social justice in placing women in a permanently subor­dinate position to men and essentially in repro­ductive bondage to the state?

The ability of women to have re­productive control over their own bod­ies has long been an essential goal in the never-ending battle for global fe­male equality, stronger families and reduced poverty and disease. To quote Claire Short, a Roman Catholic and former Inter­na­tional De­velopment Secretary for the United King­dom:

“My church is playing a deeply obstructive role where, if it had its way [regarding contraceptives and abortions], a mil­lion more people would get the HIV virus, there would be more and more un­wanted pregnan­cies, more and more illegal abor­tions, and more and more mothers dying as a result of il­legal abor­tions. That is the position they are trying to work for. And it’s a morally destruc­tive course.”

————————————-

[i]EC was finally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1999 for women 18 and over with a doctor’s prescription. In 2006 it became available without a prescription and in 2009 the age was dropped to 17. Girls under 17 can obtain a prescription. In France EC is dispensed to high school girls by the school nurse. See
[ii] http://www.population-security.org/rave-91-03.htm ; www.population-security.org/liew-92-03.htm
[iii] For example, see http://www.seechange.org/media/ms%20magazine%2010%2099.htm
[iv] For example, see http://www.seechange.org/media/a%20callous%20and%20coercive%20policy.htm
[v] For example, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/amnesty-to-defy-catholic-church-over-rape-victims-abortion-rights-461358.html
[vi]See Rob Boston’s article, “Medical Emergency: Catholic Hospitals Usurp Patient’s Rights” in The Humanist (March-April 2011). One organization fighting Catholic hospital mergers is Merger Watch (www.mergerwatch.org).

Philosophy and Secular Humanism

Question: Does the study of philosophy result in a secular humanistic outlook?

Sometimes it does, as a good number of humanists came from a formal study of philosophy. But sometimes it does not; many other students of philosophy do not adopt “humanism” as their philosophy of life. Let us consider a summary of the relationship between philosophy (specific areas) and humanism.

I. A view of Philosophy (vis-a-vis Humanism)

First, consider three areas of philosophy, which many students encounter early in their philosophical training:

• History and survey of different philosophical traditions;

• Ethics (moral philosophy);

• Critical, analytical philosophy.

When we study the history of philosophy and survey different philosophical traditions, we learn that there are (and have been) many views about our world and human’s place in that world. So we are less inclined to accept unquestioningly any single philosophical, political, or religious view as the absolute truth. Many of us develop a healthy skepticism regarding all claims about universal, absolute truth.

When we study ethics we learn that people can have an adequate moral philosophy that is independent of all religious doctrines and belief in a deity. We learn that authoritarian, Biblical-based morality is only one alternative among different ethical orientations, and that from a rational perspective this alternative is very problematic, although it may be emotionally reassuring for some believers.

In the area of analytical, critical philosophy, we try to clarify our terms and concepts. We practice close analysis and logical evaluation of our presuppositions and beliefs. We distinguish between opinion and knowledge and, as much as is practical, we try to base our beliefs on observation, experience, scientific fact and rational inference from established truths. In this context, traditional, venerable religious claims about the world and human existence do not enjoy a privileged status and are likely to be rejected as lacking any scientific or rational grounds.

II. A Brief Statement of Humanism

Some of us who call ourselves “humanists” accept the following as characterizing important aspects of humanism.

Humanists focus on existence within a natural and social realm, and reject all doctrines and speculations about supernatural realms and entities. Hence, many humanists reject the theism of the major religions (belief in a deity who plays an active role in human life) and are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. Some general points of this view of humanism include the following:

• Humans are on their own; i.e., they build their world for better or worse, without any help or hindrance from deities or demons; and

• We gain knowledge of our world and our existence by our experience, reliance on reason, and use of scientific methods;

• Such knowledge informs us that there is no basis for the reality of a “supernatural realm”, including all gods, angels, or demons of much traditional religious culture.

Historically, precursors of modern humanism turned attention to human reality and away from theologians’ speculative, doctrinal focus on God and the supernatural.

• Early humanistic writers, artists and philosophers, of the Italian Renaissance, turned their attention more to human achievement, the sciences, the arts, human society and secular values.

• The Enlightenment and scientific revolution of the seventeenth century further helped to degrade the dominance of religion and theology in favor of scientific approaches and free thought.

• In Western tradition, two early “modern” philosophical trends set the stage for what would come to be a naturalistic, humanistic style of thinking. Rationalism emphasized that the human mind alone, without divine assistance, can discover truth. Empiricism stressed that careful observation and study of nature are the ways of learning about our world.

• In general, “humanistic” thinkers and writers turned attention away from theological doctrine and metaphysical speculation to focus on this earthly life.

Given my brief statement of three areas of philosophy and my emphasis of humanism as a secular philosophy, the connection between philosophy and humanism seems obvious.

However, there are those who disagree.

III. Reason for hesitation.

Other considerations cast doubt on the view that philosophy clearly leads to secular humanism:

• Traditionally and historically, philosophy encompasses more than the critical, secular brand of philosophy that I favor. Philosophy has been long associated with theological and religious training. Many philosophers are religious people (priests, theologians, Christian scholars) and many religious people have philosophical backgrounds. In short, significant areas of philosophy are compatible with theistic religion.

• Many who work in the area of philosophy regard it as a strictly academic, scholarly activity that does not translate into a way of life or personal outlook on things. Many of these people do not regard a secular outlook as being emotionally fulfilling or supportive in times of crises.

• Some use the “tools of philosophy” to defend and bolster the political or religious views that they held prior to studying philosophy. Such philosophers do not focus attention on the many questionable doctrines of Christianity, but instead use arguments in formal logic to show that the secular thesis has not been proven or shown to be totally, rationally compelling. (E.g. Alvin Plantinga and William L. Craig).

• The study and work in the field of philosophy does not always lend itself to effective organizational work and advocacy of a cause, so valued by an organization like the American Humanist Association. Some “philosophical” types are more interested in study and analysis than in working to improve the organization and attract new members to the group. We could imagine “philosopher” still pondering, reflecting and re-assessing the issue, while the secular warriors are preparing their defenses against the latest onslaught from the forces of dogmatic, supernatural religion.

Thus, training in philosophy does not always result in advocacy of secular humanism. Although philosophy has given us great humanists like John Dewey and great secular thinkers like Bertrand Russell, others from the field of philosophy have not been advocates or even friends of humanism, e.g. a former professor of philosophy, William Bennett, a leading conservative spokesman and advocate for traditional, religious values.

IV. Affirm the connection.

Nevertheless, the better part of philosophy, viz. critical philosophy, tends to point us in the direction of secular humanism. Critical philosophy requires that we seek scientific, rational, and naturalistic explanations for everything, including religious and mystical experiences. As such, then, critical philosophy is a strong antidote to the supernaturalism, superstitious folly and false assumptions taught by established religions. The study of critical philosophy and appreciation for scientific methods, along with the habit of rational skepticism and an empirical attitude, help the student resist the enchantment of priests and ministers. I find that this is very much in keeping with important principles of secular humanism, as I understand them.

To this extent, then, the study and practice of critical philosophy can bring the student directly to the entrance of secular humanism. Should she then take the extra step and join the society of secular humanists? The answer is “Yes,” if our “philosopher” sees that secular humanism emphasizes the importance of enlightened, progressive thought. However, if she finds that secular humanism is just another form of partisan ideology, the “philosopher” might not be comfortable among secular humanists.

Corliss Lamont suggests that humanism is a natural fit for persons who practice philosophical thought and analysis. His tenth principle of Humanism reads as follows:

Belief in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including those held by Humanists. The corollary belief that Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning.

(The Philosophy of Humansim, Corliss Lamont, 1972, Ungar Publishing, New York, NY, page 14,)

This suggests a brand of humanism that should be very inviting to the student of critical philosophy, and gives us more evidence for claiming a close relationship between secular humanism and at least one area of philosophy, viz., critical, analytical philosophy.

C Rulon: Are Abortions Psychologically Harmful?

By Charles L. Rulon
Emeritus, Life & Health Sciences
Long Beach City College

Introduction

Anti-choice literature depicts abor­tions as being psy­cho­­logi­cally devas­tating, with women suffering night­mares, feelings of guilt and even suicidal tenden­cies following an abortion. This raft of supposed emotional problems has even been given a name, “Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome.”

“I had an abortion in 1978. It was the worst mistake of my life. It not only destroyed the life of my baby, it destroyed my life as well. It is time we looked at abortion for what it really is—the death of your own child.”

—Letter to the Editor

But are abortions really psychologically devastating for the large majority of women?

Scientific findings

Presi­dent Ronald Reagan once said: “We cannot sur­vive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be aban­doned to abortion…”[1] So Reagan ordered his Surgeon General, Dr. C. Evrett Koop, to prepare a report documen­ting the psycho­logically harm­ful effects of abor­tion. But Dr. Koop’s dedication to the scientific method got in the way.

Koop’s thorough review of the scientific literature revealed that the psycho­logi­­cal prob­lems following an abortion appear­ed to be “min­iscule from a public health perspective,” affect­ing very few women. Although many women experienced some sadness following an elective abortion, the predom­inant sensation was one of relief. In fact, given the fail­ure rate of most con­tra­­ceptives, many women actually appreciated the psycho­logi­cal as­sur­ance of know­ing that safe, le­gal abor­tions were avail­able, if ever needed. Those few women who were suicidal following an abortion were mostly found to be suicidal before becoming pregnant in the first place. Since Koop’s findings did not serve Reagan’s goals, a govern­ment report was never pub­­lished.[2]

Several studies since then have con­firmed Koop’s findings.[3] Recently, a major 12-year study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in Jan. 2011 found that having an abortion did not increase a woman’s likelihood to seek psychiatric assistance, although delivering a baby did.[4] (The tens of thousands of auto deaths each year emotio­nally deva­state people “in­fi­nitely” more than early elective abor­tions ever did. Yet no one talks about outlawing cars as a result.)

Anti-choice rhetoric is psychologically harmful

Ironically, if there is psycho­log­ical harm following an abortion, it mostly comes from (or is exacerbated by) the dishonest anti-abor­tion rhetoric, itself. There can be much guilt and self-hatred experienced by those women who truly believe that they went against God’s Law and “murdered their own babies”. In addition, when medical person­nel, minis­ters, friends and/or family members are religiously or morally judgmental toward those women who decide to termi­nate a preg­nancy, the result can be emotion­al distress. Thus, many women who choose to abort still keep it a secret from friends and family. This effort of concealment and lying can also a source of psychological distress.

Helping women psychologically

If our society was really con­cerned about the psychological health ef­f­ects on women who choose to abort, it would be paying much more attention to the fact that:

—The world’s anti-abortion laws have never worked anyway, but instead have proved to be a major public health and social disaster, with millions of women every year ending up in hospitals hemorrhaging, badly in­fected and in debilitating pain from botched abortions. Often left behind are young, unattended children whose chances for survival are bleak.

—Laws that attempt to force women with unwanted pregnancies to stay pregnant against their will—to be unwilling embryo incu­bators—are laws that demean, endanger, and essentially psychologically and physically enslave women.

—Over 30 million women each year are pressured into actually carrying unwanted pregnancies to term, often leading to physical and psychologically harm to these women, their families and to society at large. Furthermore, studies have revealed that psy­cho­logical pro­blems, drug abuse and delin­quency are more common among the offspring of those mothers who were coerced or forced into carrying to term.[5]

The psychological effect on our nation

Have our pro-choice laws really had a devas­ta­ting psychological effect on our nation as Presi­dent Reagan once warned? Hardly! Most Americans and most Western Europeans have healthy families grow­ing up in safe surround­ings. In stark contrast, in almost all countries where abor­tions are still il­legal, there are high infant mortality rates and little com­mitment to either women’s rights, or to the health of children. Yet, anti-abortion activists want the U.S. to have the same anti-abor­tion laws as countries like Afghanistan and El Salvador.

Societies have never been threat­ened by laws that per­mit early safe elective abor­tions. Instead, societies are most threaten­ed by WMD, poverty, virulent national­ism and racism, economic crises, accelerated ecological des­truc­tion, wars, terrorism and religious extremists.

Some concluding thoughts

The abortion bat­tle has never really been about the civil rights of mindless, senseless embryos, or about protecting women from psychological devastation. Instead, it’s been a Catholic right-wing, Pro­tes­tant funda­­­­men­talist, moral zealo­try issue, mixed in with political and financial power issues, male domi­na­tion issues and unwar­ranted fears of God’s wrath. We have not yet adequately docu­mented the extent of human suffer­ing caused by our conser­vative religious teachings about wo­men and sexuality. Attitudes derived from centuries of Christian influ­ence have been driven deeply into our collec­tive uncon­scious and into the structure of our in­stitutions in ways that make it very diffi­cult for us to grow up with our sexu­ality in­te­grated in a healthy man­ner with the rest of our personality.
——————————–

Charles L. Rulon is an emeritus of Long Beach City College where he taught courses in Biology and Society for 34 years. He can be reached at [email protected].
——————————————-

[1]Human Life Review, Spring, 1983.

[2](HRIRS, 1989) Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Sub­committee of the House Committee on Govern­ment Operations. “The Federal Role in Determining the Medi­cal and Psychological Impact of Abortion on Women.” (Report 101-392, 101st Con­gress, 1st Session). This report is summa­riz­ed in the tHumanis, March /April, 1990. “What Koop Didn’t Tell Reagan.”

[3] See “Examining the Association of Abortion History and Current Mental Health: A Reanalysis of the National Co-morbidity Survey Using a Common-Risk-Factor Model,” by Julia Steinberg and Lawrence Finer (2010), currently available online in Social Science & Medicine. For more information on the body of research addressing this issue, see Evidence Check: Advisory on the Mental Health Impact of Abortion.
See also the 2010 reports from the Guttmacher Foundation (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/12/13/index.html)

[4] New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 27, 2011. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0905882

[5]David, H. et. al. 1988. Born Unwanted.

Robert Richert: Strong Doubts about “God’s Intervention”

By Robert A. Richert – [email protected]

The following letter from me to the editor was published unedited in the Long Beach Press-Telegram March 21, 2004
———————————————

Dear Editor, Long Beach Press Telegram,

I am sure that most of your readers are uplifted by the stories of American soldiers whose spirituality has been strengthened by their experiences in Iraq (“Five who found Faith”, USA Weekend, March 12-14). I strongly disagree with the prevailing view of the group, summarized by corporal Luten’s statements;

“God healed my leg” and “has been with me every step of the way”.

The following true story is a graphic illustration of my objection.

In 1969, I served as an infantry soldier for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. One day my squad was on patrol near a small hamlet, when suddenly we came under heavy machine gun fire.

Fortunately, the barrage did not last long and no one was injured. The enemy hit us and fled. One of my squad members, visibly shaken, related that during the firefight he was literally dodging bullets, just like John Wayne in one of his old war movies. Like some of the soldiers in your article, he was adamant that God must have intervened to save his life. He thought he was the recipient of a miracle.

Several months after the above incident, our unit was working with a South Vietnamese Army Company. We bivouacked at their base camp; a crude assembly of buildings and hooches perched atop a small hill. The South Vietnamese soldiers lived there along with their families. One day, while most of our platoon went out on light patrol, a medic and I stayed behind to guard our gear. At midday I was relaxing in the shade at the side of a building when suddenly, I heard a loud explosion. I jumped up and as I rounded the corner, I witnessed a scene of horror that I will never forget.

A young Vietnamese woman came running carrying her infant boy, about two years old, in her arms. Both were drenched in blood. The shiny wet blood soaking into her black shirt turned it a nauseating deep maroon color. Unfortunately, it was her child’s blood. Our medic came, placed the infant on a blanket on the ground, and attempted a frenzied resuscitation. Meanwhile, the boy’s mother, her face twisted in agony, screamed hysterically. Near the center of the child’s chest, just above his tiny heart, was a hole the size of a nickel. I watched helplessly as the last of his blood oozed out of the hole, his lips turned blue, his eyes glazed over, and his life ebbed away.

So, what caused this terrible tragedy? Apparently, two South Vietnamese soldiers had a fight. One threw a hand grenade at the other and the explosion killed him instantly. In a terrible quirk of irony, a piece of shrapnel from the grenade struck the child in the center of his chest and pierced his heart.

My bullet-dodging comrade left for home before this incident occurred. I would like to ask him and the soldiers in your article, “Where was that poor child’s miracle? Why are you deserving of god’s divine intervention, and not this helpless, innocent child? What kind of God acts in so capricious and cruel a manner?”

Only the survivors of wars and other tragedies are around to tell tales of their miraculous experiences. However, this atheist in a foxhole will always speak up for one dead child of war who never had a chance…or a “Miracle”.

Do Materialists Commit a Blatant Contradiction?

Recently a respectable fellow argued that materialists blatantly contradict themselves when they take a materialist view of reality and yet affirm that free, independent action is possible.

The argument presented relied on three premises:

1) Materialism affirms that reality in nothing but matter-in-motion.
2) Materialism implies affirmation of determinism, the metaphysical idea that all physical reality is causally determined.
3) Free, independent action requires action free of determinism.

To draw the conclusion:

4) Hence, when materialists affirm that human freedom is possible they contradict themselves. (They affirm that all reality is determined and affirm that some reality (human free action) is not determined.)
—————————————————————

The argument fails because it relies on very questionable, if not downright false, premises with regard to (1) ‘materialism,’ (2) ‘determinism,’ and (3) ‘free action.’

Materialism: Defining “materialism” as the view that the only reality is matter-in-motion is not at all consistent with the materialist philosophy held by scientific materialists. At best the idea that materialism is the metaphysics which claims nothing exists but matter-in-motion is the philosophy of the ancient Greek atomists such as Democritus and Epicurus.

One plausible version of modern materialism is one that proposes that everything real ultimately has a physical base. For example, the living entities of biology and the thinking entities of psychology, sociology, and culture are entities that exist at such a level of complexity that calling them mere matter-in-motion amounts to a caricature of that level of reality. Yet, the materialist claims that ultimately each of these has a physical base. This is a viable form of realism and far removed from the simplistic notion that only matter-in-motion is real.

It would be a gross distortion to claim that the sub-atomic reality studied by quantum physics and the atomic reality studied by atomic and nuclear physics is a study of matter-in-motion, as the sub-atomic particle-waves and the atoms are the basis for matter. It would be a gross distortion to say that electro-magnetic band, which includes visible light, radio waves, ultra-violet waves and other forms of energy, is just matter-in-motion. No knowledgeable scientific materialist would ever claim that such physical realities as electrical and magnetic energy is simply matter-in-motion.

To claim that the realities of living organisms, of beings with a complex central nervous system, and of persons with culture (language, science, art, mathematics) are nothing but matter-in-motion is to commit a gross reductionism, one which scientific realists (materialists) do not commit. To say that all living organism have a physical-chemical basis is not to say that the reality of living organisms is nothing but the sub-atomic particles, the atoms, and molecules which make up that living organism. Likewise to say that all beings with a complex central nervous system and those with complex, large brains have a physical-chemical basis is not to say that the reality of such beings reduces to a set of sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules which make up those beings. In short, the complexity of existence at the biological and psychological levels is not reducible to mere matter-in-motion.

Determinism: The claim that all materialists must accept the truth of determinism is a false claim.

Universal determinism is a metaphysical philosophy that is not held by many scientific materialists. There is no compelling reason for holding that all physical reality is held together by a universal net of causal determinism. This view of a universal determinism is an old metaphysical philosophy that modern scientific thinkers have mostly abandoned because a number of factors that question that universal determinism; e.g., the indeterminism of quantum physics, the randomness that is found in physical and social reality, the chaotic aspects of much of physical reality and the complexity the characterizes much of physical reality, making claims of causal determinism to be claims of academic philosophy at best.

The fact that many of the sciences utilize a from of causal explanation, i.e., explain phenomena in terms of the conditions and processes that caused the phenomenon in question, does not imply that those sciences entail a metaphysics of universal determinism. When we consider human reality (action, behavior) at the cultural-sociological-historical level, claims of universal determinism governing human behavior are not at all tenable, since the ability to predict human behavior is very limited at best.

Freedom (“free will”): The statement that a materialist philosophy implies the impossibility of free, independent action by human beings is a false statement.

The belief that materialism negates the possibility of free, purposive, and autonomous human behavior is a belief that rests on a particular, philosophical notion of ‘freedom,’ one which identifies free action with free will, and sees freedom and free will as being independent of all conditioning factors. Accordingly, if human behavior can be causally explained as arising from neurological factors, psychological conditioning, and such, it is held that such behavior is not free behavior. Only action that would take place in absolute independence of any determining factor would be considered free action or action indicative of free will.

There are good reasons for rejecting that notion of ‘freedom,’ which turns out to be a concept of metaphysical freedom held by many traditional philosophers, but one which has nothing to do with our ordinary, effective concept of freedom. A rough statement of our ordinary, effective notion of freedom is that one acts freely when one acts in accordance with one’s desires and self-interest. In other words, one is not coerced or compelled to act by some determining force, external or internal. A modern materialist does not have any trouble accounting for the fact that humans make ‘free’ choices and rational decisions which are not just the outcome of factors beyond their control.

Even if one accepts some version of metaphysical determinism (and there are many reasons for rejecting such), many philosophers have developed views of human ‘freedom’ which are compatible with determinism. In other words, it does not follow that if one accepts determinism, the implication is one that denies human free, ‘independent’ action.

Robert Oppenheimer and Andrei Sakarov

Two Nuclear Scientists, Robert Oppenheimer and Andrei Sakarov, played leading roles in the development of nuclear bombs (A-Bomb for R.O. and the H-Bomb for A. S.) for their respective governments, and then experienced similar reversals in their views of the wisdom and morality of the nuclear weapons programs in their respective nations.

Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project which developed and built the first Atomic bomb in the mid 1940s, later became a voice of moderation and opposed development of the even more powerful thermonuclear bomb (H-Bomb). He felt that US superiority in stockpiling A-Bombs was sufficient for national defense, but he was opposed by strong voices in and out of government who favored the H-Bomb project; he was eventually discredited, lost his security clearance, and had no further influence on US nuclear arms policy. The US government took the advice of Edward Teller, one of Oppenheimer’s scientific colleagues, and proceeded to develop the H-Bomb. Meanwhile (in the 1950s) Oppenheimer’s loyalty to the United States was questioned and he was generally discredited as a leading scientist and adviser to the government. His contributions both for defense and as a spokesman for moderation were not given due recognition until much later (1990s) during the time of the Clinton administration.

The leading scientist in the Soviet development of the thermonuclear bomb was Andrei Sakarov, known as the “father of the H-Bomb” in the Soviet Union. After successful above-ground testing of the most powerful nuclear device ever exploded, he also had second thoughts. He criticized the whole arms program of the Soviet Union, argued strongly for bilateral nuclear treaties with the United States, criticized Soviet policies, and the Soviet authorities. In 1975 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but the leaders of the USSR were not pleased. Eventually he was arrested and sentenced to “internal exile.” But with the later developments and moderation in the Soviet Union, Sakarov was recognized for his work on behalf of Human Rights. I believe that the American Humanist Association named him “Humanist of Year” in 1980.

It is ironic to note that in each case we have two leading scientists, whose moral, social conscience got them in trouble with the authorities in their respective countries. Each came out as a spokesman for moderation and opposed his respective nation’s mad dash into the nuclear arms race. Both paid the price that is often exacted on anyone who raises moral questions about his country’s weapons programs and anyone who opposes the military policies of their governments, especially when officials claim that national security hangs in the balance.

“Donkeys, Angels, Jugheads, and Jerks” (Sociological Taxonomy, or just plain Name-Calling?)

Benjamin, the Donkey, in George Orwell’s, Animal Farm

When the animals were all excited about the revolution on the farm:

“Benjamin, .. seemed quite unchanged since the Rebellion. He did his work in the same slow obstinate way as he had done it in Jones’s time, never shirking and never volunteering for extra work either. About the Rebellion and its results he would express no opinion. When asked whether he was not happier now that Jones was gone, he would only say “Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey,” and the others had to be content with this cryptic answer.” (37-38)

When Snowball and Napoleon were vying for leadership of the animals:

“Benjamin was the only animal who did not side with either faction. He refused to believe either that food would become more plentiful or that the windmill would save work. Windmill or no windmill, he said, life would go on as it had always gone on — that is, badly.” (55-56)

Later in the story after the revolution had been betrayed:

“…their life, so far as they knew, was as it had always been. They were generally hungry, they slept on straw, they drank from the pool, they laboured in the fields; in winter they were troubled by the cold, and in summer by the flies. Sometimes the older ones among them racked their dim memories and tried to determine whether in the early days of the Rebellion, when Jones’s expulsion was till recent, things had been better or worse than now. They could not remember. . . they had nothing to go on except Squealer’s lists of figures, which invariably demonstrated that everything was getting better and better. The animals found the problem insoluble; in any case, they had little time for speculating on such things now. Only old Benjamin professed to remember every detail of his long life and to know that things never had been, nor ever could be much better or much worse — hunger, hardship, and disappointment being, so he said, the unalterable law of life.” (119-120)

————————–

Good old Benjamin, the donkey in George Orwell’s classic social satire, Animal Farm, represents one class of people, the gentle cynic who is not much excited by those things that excite others. He is the type of person who has lived a long life, has seen too much to hope that things will change for the better, and does not jump on the latest bandwagon. Call his class the ‘donkey class’ and ask yourself, who among your acquaintances falls into this class? Working out an answer would be a useful exercise.
————————-

Some people are incurable classifiers; they’re inclined to divide people into classes; and some people are not. I try to avoid the temptation to classify people and refuse to join those are always ready to stereo-type people into derogatory. But this implies that would I list myself outside the class of those who put people into different classes; and this, in turn, implies a distinction between those who classify others into classes and those, including myself, who don’t. So, despite my intention to avoid classifying others, I have done exactly that.
————————

Eric Hoffer, in his book, The True Believer, spends some time describing the personality type who is a “true believer” in a cause, whether religious, political, or any other ideology and life-style. It is interesting to note that Hoffer classifies people such as atheists and skeptics as embracing their own form of ‘true belief,’ and thus falling into the class of ‘true believers.’ Presumably, he does not see himself as a true believer; he calls himself a gentle cynic and has some of the qualities of Benjamin, the donkey.

—————————————————-

There are many old and contemporary ways of dividing people up into contrary classes.
Here I list a few.

Liberals, Progessives, and Political Conservatives
Democrats and Republicans
Rich and Poor
Religious and non-religious
God believers and non-believers
Europeans and Non-Europeans
Men and Women
Married and Single
Parents and Childless
City dweller and lovers of the country life
Dog lovers, and cat lovers
Lovers of pets and those who prefer to be without pets

Cowboys and Indians
Ranchers and Sheepmen
Motorists and Bicyclists

Those who love silence and sounds of nature
Those who cannot exist without electronic noise

Those who like coffee and those who prefer tea
Those who have money and those who don’t

Those who like fresh air and the windows open
Those who prefer to keep the windows closed

Those who like jazz and those who prefer the classics.

Those who love camping and those who cannot stand it

Those who like the sounds and activities of their neighbors
Those who are annoyed by the noise of their neighbors

Those who hear too much; those who don’t hear enough
Those who love spectator sports; those who consider them a waste of time
———————————————

Now for some griping: Some people are angels; some are ‘jugheads’; and others are ‘jerks.’

Angels are the kind-hearted, optimistic type who find good in everyone and everything. They are people who don’t just talk about the Golden Rule, but live their live according to that principle as much as anyone is able to do that. (Believe it or not, there are such people among us.)

Jugheads are people who are rude, inconsiderate, nuisances because they don’t know any better. Consider a common jughead act that we often experience out there in the social world: the guy who plays his auto stereo at highest volume and has never thought of the effect the sounds have on others within fifty yards.

Jerks are people who are rude, inconsiderate, nuisances because they don’t give a damn. Consider a common jerk act that we often experience out there in the social world: the guy who plays his auto stereo at highest volume, knows it bothers others within fifty yards, but could not care less.

(These three classes do not exhaust the classes of human beings.)
————————————

Appearances are Deceiving or the Perils of Stereo-Typing:

(A few years ago an old friend told me this story, which I shall recount as he told it me: in the first person.)

My first meeting with the Department Chairman

Early in the 1970s I made first visit to the philosophy graduate program office at the University of California. This happened in late summer when I had an appointment with the Department Chairman, call him “Professor Morehead.” This was my first meeting with him. I told the secretary up front who I was and why I was there. She had me wait for a few minutes.

A skinny, raggedy, somewhat unkempt man was emptying out the trash cans at the secretary’s area in front of the faculty offices. I took him to be the janitor. Another person, well-dressed man, walked through the entry to an office. When the secretary told me that Morehead was ready to see me, I assumed that he was the stylish dresser and headed for the room that he had entered. As I started to pass by the chairman’s office, the raggedy, unkempt man stuck his head out the door and motioned me over there. “That other guy,” he told me, “was a graduate student taking a summer class,” before heartily shaking my hand and telling me with a smile, “I’m Morehead.” To my surprise, the “janitor” was Professor Morehead, Department Chair and Professor of Philosophy! He enjoyed a good laugh at my confusion.

Morehead was a great guy, very informal in attire, who later encouraged me with my dissertation project and helped me to achieve my dream, a graduate degree in philosophy!

No, We don’t attain Perfection, but what is Perfection?

Years ago my high school, home town buddy, Alex, once had an error-free performance on a ninth-grade algebra test — i.e., he solved every problem correctly, no errors whatsoever — but when his test was returned by the algebra teacher, Sister Michele, a nun teaching at the Catholic high school we attended, the paper had a ‘98’ score instead of the expected ‘100.’ When he questioned Sister Michele regarding the two points deducted on his test score, she replied that only Jesus was perfect. Understandably, my friend was upset by this, but what could he do? After all, only Jesus is perfect! [In retrospect, we should have replied that Jesus did not take the exam! But in those days we did not dare question the authority and greater knowledge of the Church.]

I thought about this humorous incident as I thought about the issue of perfection and the tendency by some philosophers to evaluate facts and events in the world on the basis of a putative perfect condition. Many times this tendency comes in the context of an ideal or spiritual metaphysics in which all things that are material and corporeal are seen as second-rate when compared with the perfect realm which is seen as having a greater reality. Plato’s theory of forms comes to mind, along with the spiritual metaphysics of Christian doctrine. The things of this world are nothing but appearances and temporal phenomena; they are nothing compared to the other, greater realm. The world we experience is imperfect; the other world (the realm of forms, for Plato; or God’s spiritual realm, for the Christian) is where perfection is realized.

Before the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the democratic revolutions and the rise of science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this metaphysical idea of an imperfect, less-than-desirable world of the senses and of perfection residing in a realm beyond the reach of human reason and intelligence served to preserve the privileges of the ruling classes and their priestly allies. Anything resembling perfection – such as wealth, knowledge, and material privileges – were limited to those who directly served God and represented his authority in this world and to those favored by God (monarchs, royalty, and aristocrats) for some unexplained reason.

For many philosophers, the other worldly perfection was reflected only in the disciplines of geometry and mathematics. A deductive system of logic could be perfect in the sense of being without error. My friend, Alex, would have been surprised to know that our pious high school algebra teacher either did not realize this or chose to ignore it when she deducted two points from his otherwise “perfect” test.

The other consequence for much of traditional Western philosophy was that genuine knowledge was not attainable in the sensible world of ordinary experience. As the arguments in Plato’s dialogues tell us, the most we can achieve in the world of the senses is opinion, which might have a degree of reliability but will never reach the status of genuine knowledge. The only exceptions were geometry and mathematics, both of which served as models for knowledge. For the Christian philosopher, many of whom followed Platonic thought, ultimately only God had knowledge of the world. Human ‘knowledge,’ at best, was only practical and provisional, always incomplete and subject to error. But God’s knowledge was perfect and complete.

With the advent of evolutionary philosophies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this idea that perfection marked every area of knowledge started to weaken. Or at least, the idea that God, being the perfect Being, had created a static, perfect world became questionable. Geologists, naturalists and historians began to develop theories of reality on basis of their observation that the world is subject to change, deterioration, improvement and evolution. In short, the world was revealed to be anything but a static, perfect world. But even with respect to biological evolution, the notion remained that everything changed for the better, moving toward a final and perfect harmony. So the idea of perfection was still retained in the prevalent perspectives of reality. It was only when Malthus gave a more realistic view of the struggle for survival and Darwin developed his theory of evolution by natural selection that many people began to notice that the idea of perfection really did not apply to the biological and social world. Only then did some philosophers and physicists begin to question the equation of knowledge as an absolute, perfect knowledge.

Surprisingly, some people in and out of philosophy still think in these terms. I argued recently with a retired philosophy instructor who insisted that what we take as knowledge of events, contemporary or historical events, is not genuine knowledge because one can imagine alternative scenarios being possible. In other words, unless what we affirm in our claim to knowing something is absolutely and perfectly true (no possibility of error or alternative account), we cannot claim genuine knowledge. His claim is that our ordinary, empirical knowledge (as well as much of our scientific knowledge) is always based on a specific conceptual scheme or framework and is, therefore, not a completely objective form of knowledge. In short, we cannot attain perfection in our claims to knowledge. We only have perspectives and beliefs based on those perspectives which we take as knowledge and which may be practical enough; but we never attain genuine knowledge. I’m willing to grant this may point to genuine problems in epistemology and issues of rational skepticism; but it has all the tell-tale signs of a pursuit of perfection or the rendering of philosophical judgment on the scale of perfection.

Loosely related to this tendency to aim for perfection, on the part of many philosophers, is the equally erroneous idea that genuine knowledge requires proof, as in logical or mathematical proof. Hence, we have the misguided form of skepticism which doubts everything that cannot be mathematically or deductively proven. Of course, this is an untenable form of skepticism, good only for those ‘thought experiments’ so beloved by many enthusiasts of philosophy.

Contrary to this “hunger for perfection,” I agree with the many biologists, historians, and political scientists who deny that the idea of perfection as an absolute by which we evaluate human knowledge has any place in our natural, social world and can at best serve only as a limiting concept. Granted, we often refer to something as being “perfect” and hold that this is an accepted form of expression [*] ; but we should not confuse our way of talking with affirmation of other-worldly metaphysics. We don’t dwell in an ideal world where perfection is to be found; and my friend should damn well have gotten a ‘100’ score on his algebra test.
———————————————-

* Of course the terms “perfect” and “perfection” have legitimate roles in our language. We often speak of the “perfect day” or the “perfect trip” as a way of emphasizing that the day had nothing but good qualities or emphasizing that the trip to Tahiti was great without any problems or complaints. Someone may speak of the perfect match between a man and woman (match “made in heaven”) or refer to a very good applicant for a job as “perfect for the position.” These are just ways of emphasizing that Bill and Mary are not just very compatible, but compliment each other in many ways. The applicant may not simply satisfy every requirement for the position, but be such a good fit that he will perform beyond the expectations of the job function. We may say that musicians performance was perfect as a way of expressing our view that there’s no aspect that needs improvement or could be criticized. But none of these forms of expression imply anything about the type of absolute existence or absolute property so beloved by many theologians and traditional philosophers.

More “knocking about” on the notion of philosophy

For some of us (fortunate ones or otherwise) there is a tension in our thoughts about philosophy: We vacillate between the idea that filosofía is our most important possession and the contrary idea that most of the work of philosophers is irrelevant to the important concerns of life. We suspect that philosophy is mostly a pastime for the privileged, well-to-do, class; and of little use to those who must struggle for economic and political survival.

Consider another point of tension: whole peoples suffer mass extinction (Jews in Nazi Europe, the victims of Stalin’s purges in the USSR (1930′s), Africans at the mercy of the slave traders and slave masters, native people of America’s in face of European invasion, 1970′s genocide in Cambodia, periodic famine and political killings in Africa, oppression and mass killings in former Yugoslavia, and so on. Then ask:

What good are philosophy, ethics and moral philosophy, religion, poetry, music and other sides of the higher culture when entire populations are annihilated, tortured and repressed? What good the religious culture and “high morality” of advanced nations?

How do our moral philosophers, religious and political leaders explain the great suffering and injustice that are part of the day-to-day reality for millions around the world?

We have a tension and paradox here, but hopefully we won’t have to throw away our beloved philosophy. Maybe there’s some saving grace here. (Maybe or maybe not.)
——————–

The term “philosophy” is a general, vague term that can mean different things. There is not any one thing that alone counts as ‘philosophy’ to the exclusion of everything else. Any attempt to give the final, over-arching definition of philosophy is bound to fail; the best that one can do is to stipulate a working definition of philosophy.

Let us say that there is a family of activities (related in certain ways) called philosophic work; imagine a loose network of activity such as study, research, analysis, writing, teaching, socio-political work, religious thought. Some of this work will turn out to be important to those who attempt to build and sustain a democratic society, and some important to those among us who desire to develop our intellectual, moral, creative and religious capabilities.

Corresponding to our loose family of activities, there will be a class of individuals practicing philosophy in some way and who are sometimes referred to as “philosophers.” There will be great variety among these people and very different views as to the nature of their work.
————————–

9/20/91: Here we have one attitude [an echo of the character, Thrasymachus, in one of Plato's dialogues]:

“Philosophy”? What does it mean? It is a word, that’s all.
There are ways of thinking, certain studies and interests. We call some “philosophy.”

“Justice”? There is little justice in the world, practically none. I challenge the churchman, moralist, or philosopher to demonstrate that justice found in any significant degree in our world. I challenge anyone to show me that the cause of justice drives much of people’s actions or thinking.

There is little or no justice. Some people enjoy lives; most people suffer great deprivation. … That’s all there is to it. That’s how the world is.

The term “philosophy” simply refers to certain ways of talking and thinking, mostly limited to the privileged classes. But the term doesn’t play a significant role in the lives of most people.

Thrasymachus was correct. All that matters are power, the attainment of wealth and material comfort. All that matters is getting your share of the goods and holding on to it. …making your share grow and produce more wealth.
—————————————-

DESCARTES, EPISTEMOLOGY & SKEPTICISM

Only a fool, ignorant of the development of philosophy in the West would deny that Rene Descartes played a very significant and positive role in that development. However, it is also true that in several important ways, Descartes influence has been unfortunate; one might even say that Descartes has misled many philosophers in Western culture in three important ways.

1. The idea that knowledge requires absolute certainty, such that any possibility of doubt precludes knowledge.

2. The idea that the starting point for gaining knowledge about our world is the individual thinking mind with nothing but its own ideas.

3. Dualism: the idea that the human person is comprised of two substances, the corporeal and the mental.

(Of course, these did not originate with Descartes, but in Western thought Descartes gave these ideas significant expression.)
—————————–

Apr. 2000

The critical philosopher’s work is to sort out and interpret the theories and discoveries of natural science, interpret and criticize the doctrines and ideas of his culture, and by so doing come out with some statements regarding the reality and activity of human beings.

Does the scientist (the theorist) discover order in nature, or does he impose order with his theories? I find this to be a philosophically significant and profound question. How much of the work of theoretical physicists, astrophysicists and scientific cosmologists are acts of discovery? How much are they creative work?
——————-

The critical reflection on human existence and experience that philosophy encourages is relevant to the outlook of secular humanism. (Here I’m talking about a critical evaluation of our cultural myths, beliefs, presuppositions, values and so on.)
————————–

To a large extent, our experiences (our growth, training, learning, suffering, tragedy, successes, failures, wealth, poverty, health, love, indifference, illness, etc.) determine our philosophical outlook and values. But often our stated outlook is conformist, habitual and lacking in any meaningful reflection.
————————–

04/18/2000

Science and mathematics are creations of the human mind, itself a result of biological evolution, the evolved nervous system (brain, sense faculties), and culture.

Presumably, science and mathematics are the tools for discovering the laws of nature. Or are they merely the way that scientific human culture maps reality?

Experiments, testing, verification, prediction … leading to some control over aspects of nature and to successful technology are supposed to imply something about the objective features of nature. How confident are we that the natural sciences and applied mathematics disclose the objective laws of nature?

Raising such questions may lead some to conclude that science is simply one way, among many ways, of describing reality. But this would be a mistake. For it is misleading to say that science is merely one way of looking at the world, on a par with religious myth. (Let us not lose sight of this simple truth.)

After all, some ways of mapping reality are much better than other ways. Science is our best way of gaining knowledge of our natural and social environments. To survive and be successful in the evolutionary struggle we need to apply a reality factor.

History has shown that myth and fiction can have practical value; but they will, at best, only take us a part of the way. And often they have taken us in the wrong direction.

Yet, the use and exploitation of myth and fiction can be profitable. Consider the enduring strength and success of established religions.
——————

Should philosophers strive to be scientific? Maybe not completely, since they’re philosophers and not scientists. But a philosopher ignores the sciences at his/her own peril.

What does the killing of Osama bin Laden say about American Justice?

In an article entitled “The Revenge Killing of Osama bin Laden” [1] (Tuesday 31 May 2011), Noam Chomsky raises questions regarding both the legality and the justice of the May 1st killing of Osama bin Laden by the United States. He starts by remarking:

The May 1 U.S. attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound violated multiple elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion of Pakistani territory.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by the 79 commandos facing almost no opposition.

President Obama announced that “justice has been done.” Many did not agree – even close allies. British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who generally supported the operation, nevertheless described Obama’s claim as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law.

Chomsky notes the violation of international and Pakistani law:

Pakistani and international law require inquiry “whenever violent death occurs from government or police action,” Robertson points out. Obama undercut that possibility with a “hasty ‘burial at sea’ without a post mortem, as the law requires.”

Chomsky then proceeds to raise questions about the changed policy of President Obama as compared to the way that his predecessor, GW Bush, dealt with the terrorists:

Bush captured suspects and sent them to Guantanamo and other camps, with consequences now well known. Obama’s policy is to kill suspects (along with “collateral damage”).

——————————-

This raises some interesting moral and philosophical issues. However, one might hesitate raising them in the context of the overwhelmingly popular view that “that the assault had been lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way,” and that even as an act of vengeance, the killing of Osama was a good thing.

One can understand the desire for revenge, especially by those who had close ones (family, relatives, friends) die as a result of the 9/11 attacks. One can understand the desire that those responsible for that horrendous attack be “brought to justice,” even if “justice” is carried out in the form of a quick killing, by US commandos on the ground or by an air attack (such as the increasingly used armed drones). For many of us all that matters is that the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks pay for what they did on September 11, 2001.

When we question the justice and wisdom of the US response to the terrorist attacks, we hope not to be accused of disloyalty or of being soft on terrorism (but those accusations will surely come). And if we question the justice and wisdom of the killing of Osama bin Laden, we should not be seen as dismissing the need that many Americans felt for some form of ‘justice,’ even in the form of revenge. But if we see ourselves as just and rational, we should not simply ignore a challenge like the one issued by Mr. Chomsky. We should not simply repeat that we’re glad “they got the bastard” and go on with our complacent way thinking that we’re a good and just nation, only doing violence to others when it is necessary. This is a nice thing to think about ourselves, but how does it accord with the facts?

As Chomsky points out, the facts are that there are such things as “international law” and international courts of justice. Another relevant set of facts, as he also points out, is that others who committed what are called crimes against humanity were not summarily assassinated but were in fact brought to trial.

When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden – namely the Nazi leadership – the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture.
“President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson (chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial) that summary execution …

would not serve the cause of justice. Even today, those charged with acts of genocide are not executed on the spot, but brought to trial. Consider the current case of Ratko Mladic, the onetime Bosnian Serb commander accused of presiding over Europe’s worst massacre since World War II, who was recently captured and held for trial by the tribunal at The Hague, an international court. [2] Even, Saddam Hussein, when captured was not executed but instead turned over so he could be tried by the Iraqis, who eventually executed him.

Do we think that terrorist attacks and threats against the United States are such that they can be treated in a different way to the way other nations behave? Incidentally, different from ways that we expect other nations to behave? Do we think that we have the unique privilege of using our military might and intelligence resources to identify, locate, and kill the culprits? Or are we saying that this way of acting represents justice and the best hope for a better world? Are we setting a precedent that says that, whenever one’s country is attacked and innocent civilians are killed, it is morally and legally acceptable for the targeted country to avenge the attack by killing those held responsible for the attacks?

Let us consider some of the implications of this ‘philosophy’ of international ‘justice.’ In times of war, especially modern wars, military attacks are not limited to attacks on the opposing military. Military attacks, especially aerial attacks, often target cities and civilian centers; even when the primary target is a military target, so-called “collateral damage” results in the deaths and suffering of many non-combatants and civilians (women and children).[3] Suppose that the nation who suffered such attacks acted in the ways analogous to those of the Obama administration: Find the culprits responsible for the violent killings of innocent civilians and kill them on the spot. Our political and military leaders would be fair targets. Would the United States accept such actions by others as just? No, I don’t believe the United States would accept such retaliation.

Do we conclude, then, that we (the US) through the actions of our government are grossly hypocritical? Or do we think that the only thing that matters is military might — the ability to impose our will and our sense “justice” on others — and ignore the role of international courts and international justice? The way we answer such questions will reveal much about our integrity and moral character, not always our strong qualities; although we like to imagine otherwise.

—————————————————————
[1] Article can be accessed at

http://www.truth-out.org/revenge-killing-osama-bin-laden/1306865820

[2] The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has charged Bosnian Serb Commander Ratko Moadoc with leading a genocidal campaign against Bosnia’s Muslim and Croat populations, including “direct involvement” in the 1995 killings of nearly 8,000 men and boys in the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica — the worst European massacre since the Holocaust. This was alleged to have happened during the Bosnian ethnic war from 1992 to 1995.

[3] The history of US military action is rife with military action and that of other agencies working for the US in which civilians have been targeted and killed in massive numbers. This does not refer to those cases in which civilians die as a consequence of attacks on military targets (in military jargon, “collateral damage”); but are cases in which the policy of the government and military strategists is to directly attack civilian targets (e.g. massive bombing of and missile attacks on cities).