Internationalism and voilition

[ciphergoth]

Thanks for some thought-provoking responses to my small rant about internationalism in my previous journal entry.

It would help if people made it clear whether they consider what they are describing to be essentially an involuntary feeling that they report on, or a chosen stance. Who we fancy, for example, is almost entirely involuntary, but who we have sex with is chosen. It's a normal part of human life that these two can be polar opposites, as when we resist the temptation to do some immoral thing, or when I declare that I value human life more than animal life even though I have felt more grief over the death of one cat than over the death of 10,000 people in an earthquake.

By this distinction, who we feel for is an involuntary feeling, while who we wish victory or good fortune to is a voluntary stance. When I say that I had hoped to see a greater spirit of internationalism, that's in reference to the chosen stance that people take: that we should consider the life of an Iraqi soldier or civilian to be as valuable as the life of an American or British one. What people described in response were their involuntary feelings about the lives of these people, which is an interesting but distinct discussion.

I recognise the feelings that people describe. For example, I feel a closeness to London that comes from having been born and raised there, and from living there a long time. I know and like London and its people. Where my stance is that something doesn't really matter one way or the other, I can relax and enjoy my involuntary feelings, for example by cheering on the London team in a London vs Baghdad game of Which Rabbit. But it seems inappropriate to say the least to allow our hearts to rule our heads in matters of global life and death; to be internationalists, we must make a deliberate effort to put aside any biases we may carry with us about who is most similar to ourselves and choose a stance based on the interests of all of humanity.

Furthermore, though I describe these feelings as "involuntary", that's only a partial description. We experience them as involuntary, but that's not to say we have no power over them; people make deliberate efforts to change their feelings in order to quit smoking, recover from a phobia, or get over a lost lover. When we catch ourselves affected by, for example, the sexist feelings that the society we live in encourages, we make a deliberate effort to change the way we feel about that too. I would have hoped that people would see feelings of national loyalty in the same light, as an involuntary feeling, in contradiction to our chosen stance, that we would make a deliberate effort to change.

Footnote: I don't really want to spark off a big debate about free will by using the words "involuntary" or "chosen". For these purposes, consider "chosen" to be "that for which we hold you responsible". Since we're all happy to sometimes hold people responsible for some things that they do, we can all recognise this distinction.

Comments

Human life.

[altamira16.livejournal.com]

I think it is easy to not see the human life in this war. It is easy because it is a war far away, likely the people who will die will not be people we know or are close to. The only thing we will know about the people who die is what is reported on the news so it is easy to see it as a war on beliefs ("The Iraqi Government is bad!") without looking at the human life aspect at all. ("Look at the "shock and awe" on the television. That was a big explosion. I wonder what caused that.")

I am sad that people are dying, and I don't see much of a change happening in that region of the world after the Iraqi government is out of power. I don't think that any government that will be established will represent all of the Iraqi people given that there are so many types of people in Iraq (Kurds, Sunni, non-Kurd Shiites) or really satisfy any of them.

Re: Human life.

[ant-girl.livejournal.com]

I think it is easy to not see the human life in this war.

I agree. That is why I prefer to read individual accounts about people in Iraq and how they feel about things, rather than watch the news broadcasts about the war. They may (or may not) be propoganda, they may not give the bigger picture, but I feel they keep me in touch with what's really happening on a human level.

I for one welcome our new ant overlords

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I missed that discussion.

I always used to be bemused by the anti-Europe arguments I'd read in my parents' copy of the Daily Mail. "How will YOU feel when GERMANS run the country?!" they'd ask. My main thought was "Well, if they do a better job of it than the current lot, I'll be delighted."

What matters to me is how free, democratic and well-run the country is. I don't care if the people doing the job live in London, Berlin, Washington DC, or on the International Space Station; I see no evidence that locality of government corresponds to how good a job they do.

Similarly, the people in power can be English, French, Iraqi, or even grey aliens for all I care, so long as they do their job in an honest and efficient manner.

The one reason for devolution I see as valid is that countries should be governed with the consent of the population; if the vast majority of people in Scotland wants to be governed by a bunch of people sitting in a building in Edinburgh who all live in Scotland, they should get what they want. However, that works both ways--since (for whatever historical reason) the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to be governed from London, they should get what they want too.

One thing I do feel is that smaller countries are probably more democratic and responsive to the needs and desires of the people than larger ones. This was brought home to me when I travelled to Luxembourg, and noticed that the local politicians were all listed in the phone book, as well as posted on the outside of the parliament building.

I don't feel any kind of nationalistic fervor. The closest I get is that I feel that I was really lucky to happen to be born English. I do have one involuntary negative bias, though: I tend not to find English people sexy...

[lizw.livejournal.com]

It would help if people made it clear whether they consider what they are describing to be essentially an involuntary feeling that they report on, or a chosen stance.

Thanks for (a) getting that distinction, and (b) phrasing it more clearly than I seem to have managed to do ;-)

But it seems inappropriate to say the least to allow our hearts to rule our heads in matters of global life and death;

My view on this is that our hearts need to be satisfied for the sake of our own mental health, but in a way that doesn't stop us doing whatever our heads tell us we should be doing. I find that symbolic gestures are good for this. If I give my heart what it needs to feel satisfied, it's much less likely to ambush my head at an inconvenient moment.

So, my chosen stance is this:

Whilst I agree in principle that all lives are equally valuable, I do not believe that individuals (or governments) have an equal obligation to all other individuals, which is a separate question[1]. That is not to say that they have none at all to a random stranger, but that the content of the obligations is different. In the case of a random stranger, it may be essentially a negative obligation not to do certain things, rather than a positive one. In the context of actions by governments, these will be negative obligations related to human rights - not to kill except in certain limited circumstances, for instance. Positive obligations are rapidly created as soon as an individual or a government begins to intervene actively in a given situation, however. For instance, becoming involved in a war rapidly triggers positive obligations under the Geneva Convention.

There are also some actions going beyond those obligations that I would like to see taken on the grounds that, even if we're not obliged to take them, my ethical values are such that I want to be the kind of person that takes them and to belong to the kind of country that takes them. In the context of actions by governments, I would like to see more active intervention in countries whose governments commit widespread human rights abuses that the constitutional structures of that country have proved unable to control, for example.

[more in another comment, because I've hit the limit]

There is a good article discussing this difference called "A Defence of Abortion", by Judith Jarvis Thomson, in a book called Applied Ethics edited by Peter Singer. Also available in Philosophy and Public Affairs I, no.I (Fall 1971), Princeton University Press, for anyone who has access to an academic library.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

[continued]

I have not yet formed a clear view on what the obligations of the UK require as regards Iraq, or what actions going beyond those obligations might be appropriate, because I find the strategic, legal and ethical considerations extremely complicated. Maybe I will come to a clearer view later, but it's quite possible that I won't, because not all of the relevant information is publicly available, and even if it were, I do not have any specialist training in dealing with it. One thing I am clear on is that having made the decision it has, the UK bears a heavy obligation to make provision for reconstruction and for what political structure comes next. Therefore, my head tells me that for the moment I should do nothing either to further or to hinder the war, but should do what I can to further reconstruction and self-determination. That will probably take the form of donations to the Red Cross or Red Crescent, and a letter to my MP.

I would have hoped that people would see feelings of national loyalty in the same light, as an involuntary feeling, in contradiction to our chosen stance, that we would make a deliberate effort to change.

I don't perceive a contradiction between my feelings of national loyalty and my chosen stance, but I suspect there may be different assumptions at work between us as to what "national loyalty" entails. I would consider it contrary to my national loyalty to further an attempt by my nation to do something dishonourable. Just as I consider it consistent with the loyalty I owe to my partners to provide a reality check if I think they are doing something seriously wrong, so I consider it consistent with the loyalty I owe to my country to protest if I think its Government is doing something seriously wrong. I am more likely to express a protest by letter-writing than by demonstrating, but I have been known to do both at different times.