Sunday, May 30, 2010

Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil

I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.

The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.

Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.

That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...

"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.

That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.

I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.

"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"

But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.

The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.

The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.

In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.

There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.

Then comes the next philosophical head fake...

"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "

To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?

For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.

Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.

Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.

It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.

It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*

* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.

So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.

More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.

Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."

Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.

I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.

*H/T Chris

No comments: