Home Bill Lynn Research Teaching Downloads Ethics Ethos Muse Wolves Contact

Posts RSS Comments RSS 189 Posts and 51 Comments till now

Archive for July, 2005

Mexican Wolves (again)

wolf.jpgThe 31st of July is the last day to email or mail comments about the Mexican Gray Wolf program. As readers of this blog already know, back-room political deals have placed an otherwise sucessful program in jeapardy. One harm is that done to wolves. The other is done to the policy making process. Both are manifestly unethical.

Information and weblinks about political interference at the program is available in previous posts. If you would like to view my comments on the five year review of the program go to the media downloads page of Practical Ethics. These comments were submitted before the backroom deal, but still speak to the issues at hand. Indeed, you might find the suggestion for an ethics component to the biological, socioeconomic and adminstrative portions of the program of some help. In light of recent actions, nothing could be more important.

cheers, Bill

Photo courtesy of J. Henry Fair (www.jhenryfair.com)

Karl Rove and “True” Islam (by Andy Davison)

christian-nationalism.jpgOne of the ways that the American and British official ideology for war functions is to divert attention from violence-engendering policies Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other undisclosed sites globally to questioning intensely whether or not the attackers of America and Great Britain are good or, as both Prime Minister Blair and President Bush tend to put it, “true Muslims.”

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, professing competence in Islamic theology and with Muslim partners to the debate by their side, constantly implore us to see the attackers of America and the UK as non-Muslims who falsely act in the name of Islam. “We know Islam is a religion that teaches love and peace and compassion. No, our struggle is against evil people - evil people that claim they’re religious, but are not,” Mr. Bush said after the 9/11 attacks (10/16/01). “It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam,” Mr. Blair said after the London attacks (7/13).

It will take a lot of time to settle this important dispute between official Anglo-American Islam and its Muslim allies, on the one hand, and its Islamist opponents who see themselves as acting righteously, on the other. Islam is comprised, like the two other great Abrahamic traditions, of vast and internally complicated sub-traditions that are sometimes greatly at odds with each other.

While this debate goes on, one should note how the declarations of “true” Islam function publicly, like snappy emails from Karl Rove, to divert discussion away from the conditions and ongoing sources of the war that the Bush and Blair administrations call “on terror” and their opponents call “on Islam.” For the former, the problem is “evil terrorism.” For the later, the problem is “US/’Crusader/Infidel’ Aggression against Muslims.” The war might be better characterized as a horribly violent contest for control over power in mostly Muslim societies, especially the petroleum rich areas of the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

The official declarations of true and false Islam, eloquently delivered by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and then repeatedly recycled nearly everywhere by others, continuously turn the causes and stakes of the conflict into religious questions. First, they reject the attackers’ faith-based intentions to be struggling on behalf of oppressed Muslims: “This is not Islam.” Second, they declare the attacks to be evil. So heavily based in the devotional commitments of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, this second move rhetorically rips the terror attacks out of any possible earthly political context, especially those where the attackers seem to want to direct attention, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Moreover, all the while, the political leaders officially declare that the “war on terror” is about freedom and civilization, not religion. “We don’t view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form,” Mr. Bush said on September 16, 2001, correcting his description of it the day before as a “crusade.”

Let us see the situation more clearly: The leaders of the US and UK are declaring truths about the traditions of their Muslim enemies and allies. They are declaring who is and who is not a good and un-”perverted” Muslim in a fight waged against “evil” from both sides.

The political question of the hour is not only, however, whether or not the violence is the work of evil. Rather, it is — and needs to be — also whether or not there are alternatives to the present, stress-inducing policies designed to preserve the power arrangements in political milieus where the majority population practices Islam. We don’t need to know that the “war on terror goes on,” as Mr. Bush said right after the attacks in London. We need to hear, and debate, more about specific policies governing specific parts of the world - including, but not only Iraq and Israel/Palestine - that engender so much violence and counter violence. The political demand of the present needs to be less perverted policy, not more true faith.

One dangerous consequence about the current debate over true Islam is that, as it intensifies, everyone gets increasingly self-righteous about correct religion. The political and earthly interests and stakes get further buried as the holy warriors for true faith argue and battle it out what they believe to be higher goods. The present debate over the content of Karl Rove’s advice to the media is long overdue; so, too, is one over the content of the official ideology of the “war on terrorism.”

Istanbul
July 22, 2005

Andrew Davison is associate professor of political science at Vassar College where he teaches courses in political theory and politics in the Middle East. His latest book is Conquering Hearts and Minds:The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. For more, see Andy Davison.

[As first published in Common Dreams, www.commondreams.org.]

Free Willie (by Steve Chase)

steve-chase.jpgPeople across the political spectrum have expressed deep concerns about the impact of anti-terrorism law and action on civil liberties and political expression. For an example of why, visit E-Magazine and view Steve Chase’s commentary entitled ‘Free Willie’. Steve is one of the ethics advisors at Practical Ethics, and the Director of the Environmental Advocacy and Organization Program at Antioch New England Graduate School. His commentary in E documents the use of anti-terrorism as an excuse to suppress concerns about environmental injustice. Such incidences should force us to examine how we protect our citizens and act against terrorism, without resorting to political repression ourselves.

cheers, Bill

The World Tribunal on Iraq and the Violence of the Present (by Andy Davison)

new-testament.jpgTwo weeks ago when I arrived in Istanbul for my annual summer visit, I was surprised to encounter people wearing buttons urging President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to come to Turkey. “Gel Bush,” “Gel Blair,” they read. “Come Bush,” “Come Blair.” I was shocked. Last year at this time, just before both leaders came to Istanbul to attend the NATO summit, the emphasis was just the reverse. President Bush was the focus of a large campaign whose buttons told him to stay away from the country: “Gelme Bush!” - Don’t Come! The President’s visit took place after revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib. Posters plastered throughout the country described him as a mass murderer and torturer.

So what had changed? Why were people urging him and Mr. Blair to come now?

What had changed was that the culminating session of the year long, global World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) was taking place here between 23rd and 27th of June. The WTI has had several purposes gathered into one essential goal: the trial by conscience of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for the abuses of power and violations of international law and norms of human decency that have taken place in Iraq since the American-led invasion of 2003. The buttons I saw this year were calling on the leaders of the war coalition to come to Istanbul and face their accusers. These included eyewitnesses and survivors of the violence against civilians and the civilian infrastructure; social and natural scientists who have studied the cultural, environmental, and ecological destruction caused by the war and its weaponry; lawyers, scholars, and experts on international law, the United Nations, ethics, politics, and war from Iraq, Turkey, Europe, and the United States. These were not supporters of Saddam Hussein. They were opponents of illegal war and military occupation who made the case against Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to an expert jury of conscience, led by notable ethicists and public figures from around the world, including Arundhati Roy and the prominent Turkish public intellectual, Murat Belge.

A few personalized notes, to add to the record: The evidence and argumentation were extremely powerful. I attended two full days of the conference. After each day I was both engaged and exhausted by what I heard and felt. I have known the American case for and against the war through exposure to the national media in the US; but I had not been exposed in such an enduring fashion to the experience of the war from the other side, or to the meticulous research on the international standards and conditions of human decency that have been breached by the war.

The tribunal was not adequately covered in the US media. On the Saturday night of the conference, after listening to a full day of presentations, I surfed the Internet to read the day’s news. With some pleasure, I perused Paul Krugman’s essay, “The War President” (June 24, 2005), in which he, too, called on Mr. Bush to be held accountable for fabricating evidence for the war. The timing between Krugman’s call and the participants in the conference in Istanbul could not have been better, I thought. So, I immediately drafted a short letter to the Times, in which I noted Mr. Krugman’s call for accountability and a broader discussion on “the need to get out” of Iraq, and I wrote: “Just such a discussion has been occurring since Friday in Istanbul, at the World Tribunal on Iraq, where scholars, activists, lawyers, journalists, and witnesses from many countries have gathered to demand that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair be held accountable for their aggressive violations of the rule of law and fundamental norms of human decency. Participants are expanding the historical record from various perspectives and express unity on the need to end the harmful American presence in Iraq. With the Jury of Conscience’s verdict due on Monday, the participants are engaging right now in the kind of exchange Mr. Krugman hopes to see in the US. For the presentations [and the final judgment of the jury] see www.worldtribunal.org/main.”

One can still visit that site and read the proceedings. The letter was my own effort to participate in the work of the conference by getting the word of the WTI into the news. I wanted others to know that the conversation that Mr. Krugman and many others in the US are now calling for had already begun. The Times did not publish the letter, nor to my knowledge did it cover the WTI. But the friends to whom I sent it were pleased to learn of the Tribunal. Several expressed shock at not having heard about it.

Mr. Bush, who along with Mr. Blair did not turn up for the Tribunal, has said in defense of the war and occupation that he believes that the US is “laying the groundwork for peace.” It is a strangely optimistic point of view, one that asks us to look steadfastly beyond all the daily violence, committed by all sides, to a post-conflict period of peaceful resolution. In effect, he suggests that we put aside all that is happening in front of our eyes with methods and tools of mass violence and coercion - including those he’s commanded into battle - and trust in his capacity to see through the daily carnage and terror, bombings and beheadings, to a brighter day. In this context, the work of the WTI should be noted and studied, for its participants asked us to see and know the violent war condition we now inhabit - its illegality, its assault on ethical relations between us - and to demand justice on behalf of all those suffering and all that is being destroyed in the current era of global war. Gel Bush… It’s never too late to get caught up with what’s been happening on your path to peace.

Andrew Davison is associate professor of political science at Vassar College where he teaches courses in political theory and politics in the Middle East. His latest book is Conquering Hearts and Minds:The American War Ideology in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, 1990-2003. For more, see Andy Davison.

Photo: An unattributed photo of an American Tank in Iraq. Click on the photo and note the words ‘New Testament’ on the Tank’s barrel.

Andy Davison (by William Lynn)

andy-davison.jpgSome people mistakenly believe Practical Ethics and the blog are solely about animals and the natural world. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are just as concerned with the questions that bedevil people, as we are in our relationship to the non-human world. So it gives me great pleasure to introduce a friend and colleague who will be posting to the Practical Ethics Blog as an occasional contributor.

Andrew Davison is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Vassar College (New York, USA) and teaches during the summer in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Bogaziçi University (Istanbul, Turkey). He is the author of Secularism and Revivalism in Turkey (Yale, 1998), The Philosophic Foundations of Modern Ideology: Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Islamism (with David Ingersoll and Richard Matthews, Prentice Hall 2000), the documentary “Leaps of Faith: Views of American Power, the Invasion of Iraq, and Citizenship in a Time of War” (with Benjamin Kalina, 2004), and Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey (with Taha Parla, Syracuse, 2004).

Andy is one of the foremost scholars on ‘theopolitics’ in the world today. Theopolitics, the intersection of religious and political ideologies, has been studied by the most important of social theorists — e.g. Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, RH Tawney, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Mulford Sibley, Charles Taylor, Elaine Pagels, Michel Foucault, Georg Gadamer. With this theoretical bent in mind, he is a leading interpreter of Turkey and the comparative lessons it has for religious-political tensions in contemporary societies. His work focuses on the ideas, lived norms and political-economic contexts that inform the normative politics and policies of culture-groups and nation-states. In this way, he speaks to the larger ethical dynamics that inform the work of everyday life. And of course, practical ethics!

Delilah and Cow Tag (by William Lynn)

longhorn.jpgDelilah and I lived in the converted loft of a barn. [For the story of how we met, go to the Delilah: In From the Wild post.] While the space itself was tiny, it had a huge second story deck, with marvelous views of the Poultney River valley, as well as the Adirondack, Taconic and Green Mountains. Surrounding it was ten acres of grazing for cows, and beyond that, a mixed coniferous forest filled with wildlife — deer, wild turkey, bear, bobcat, coyote, the occasional fisher, perhaps a catamount now and then. At night, the sky was nearly as dark and star-filled as that of northern Ontario or the Boundary Waters Wilderness of Minnesota. My landlords (Tom and Sandy) and their children (Chantal and Savannah) were a delight.

Makes me wonder why in the world I ever moved into the NYC Metro area!

One aspect I liked about living there were the dairy cows that grazed around the barn. I would come home from work and call to the ‘girls’. A small herd would come thundering over the hill to greet me. This was a bit unnerving with such big creatures running directly towards me. Yet they knew their distances and timed their halt to perfection. Cows are smarter and more active than the word ‘bovine’ conveys, especially when they graze free-range and interact with humans and other animals as individuals. Some are shy and standoffish, others bold and affectionate. Daisy was the latter. She would lean over the electric barrier, place her head on my shoulder, and nuzzle. The kids were far bolder than I, walking amongst the herd without a care.

From the comfort of the deck, I used to watch a hilarious game of chase I called ‘cow-tag’. Delilah would start the game by visibly going on the prowl in front of the cows. One moment they would be looking at each other. The next she was virtually invisible, slowly stalk them in the tall grass outside their enclosure. A cow’s ears would perk up, the head lift, and a low moo issued. The herd was on notice, and many glanced in the direction they thought Delilah would come from. They would mill about, but when she was very close, turn their backs as a herd to her. Very curious behaviour for a prey species, a? With the requisite feline tail swishing, Delilah would spring her ambush. She’d fly out of the grass (she is swift!) and bat the closest leg that presented itself. That cow would sound an alarm, and the whole herd would run off with Delilah in hot pursuit. They’d go some distance and then suddenly swing around, charging back towards Delilah. She’d turn tail and run like hell. They’d chase her to the edge of the electric fence, but never run her down. After a suitable period of grooming and grazing, Delilah might touch noses with some of the cows, or rub along their legs. All in all, it was a remarkable interaction for a little wild cat and a herd of dairy cows, neither of whom is suppose to have consciousness according to many religious and scientific dogmas of our day.

As a point of information, the family treated their cows very well, and in many cases developed deep emotional attachments to the more social of them. They were replacement heifers — back-up milk cows — and all of us felt the loss when one was carted off to an industrial dairy operation. The contradictions of contract ‘family farming’, the well-being of animals on their land, and the tragedy of what eventually befell them were readily apparent to the family. Sadly, like so many other rural families, they were caught in our distorted system of industrial animal production and marginal rural economies that corporate acquisitions and mergers, government subsidies and American culture has encouraged over the last half century.

The ethics of agricultural animals is a hot topic today. Few arenas present so much suffering, and at such a vast scale. Estimates vary, but it is safe to say that tens of billions of animals are slaughtered worldwide, many having lived through and died in the most inhumane conditions. As a culture and a species, we should not be proud of this. Delilah and the ‘girls’ represent but one instance of a growing body of experiences, experiments and evidence demonstrating (for the Nth time) what we already know — most if not all farm animals are self-aware creatures living complex emotional and social lives. The responsibility to treat them with compassion and forecaring is ours. For many animal advocates, this means ending all agricultural uses of animals, and the practice of a vegan lifestyle.

I have several friends who are vegan animal advocates. I admire their lives of compassion, and their effective work on behalf of wild or domestic animals. And yet, ethically, I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to raise animals for food or fiber. Is there no substantial difference between obese Americans shoveling down yet another feed-lot steak, while Sami herders slaughter a reindeer for ceremony, food and materials? And is there nothing in the predatory aspects of an omnivorous species like ourselves to be valued? Do we play into the primitive/civilized dichotomy when we excuse animal use for less technologically oriented cultures, but then link industrial progress to the abolition of animal use? Do we go as far as a recent set of articles in New Scientist (’Animals and Us’, 4 June 2005, www.newscientist.com), and envision a day where abolition has ended even companion animals? I know that I can’t properly answer these questions and their retorts here and now. But I raise these questions in the hope they at least give us pause from asserting simplistic statements about right and wrong. A more nuanced practical ethics should be able to recognize a range of legitimate relationships between human and other animals.

Nevertheless, trying to take a situated approach to farm animal ethics should not be confused with excusing animal abuse. Factory farms conditions are general abhorrent. Nor are ‘traditional’ family farm operations necessarily much better. While family farms may have offered more opportunities for the caring husbandry of animals, we cannot assume that this was always or mostly the case. One has to reserve judgment, and look to both the intentions and practices of the farmers, as well as the welfare of the animals themselves.

Cheers, Bill