I have just posted this further comment on the need for a ceasefire in the Palestinian / Israeli conflict on Twitter:
Let me offer a basic philosophical comment on what is happening in Israel and Gaza.
If you have to know the heritage or ethnicity of a civilian being killed as a consequence of war before you can decide on your response to their death, then you need to ask if you are being ethical.
The same is true if you have to know the heritage or ethnicity of the person who has killed them.
In my opinion, we should think that the death of a civilian killed during war is wrong, whoever they might be and whoever killed them.
John Rawls' described this as acting from behind a veil of ignorance. His philosophy suggests that we can only know what is truly ethical if we observe an action (including our own) in that way. In other words, the ethical action is only such if it is independent of the observer and the person being observed.
We are only ethical in that case if we condemn the deaths of civilians in war, whoever they are.
That is what I am doing in this conflict.
And that is why I think a ceasefire – necessarily being a demand on both sides in the conflict, and not one or the other – is what is necessary now.
The observations on comments made on a post on the same theme posted earlier today apply equally here.
For those who wonder where most of my ethical stances come from, Rawls and his idea of the veil of ignorance informs a great deal of my thinking.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I can’t say that I like the language of the Veil of Ignorance – like the term ‘redundancy’ used to depict spare capacity, it seems a clumsy use of English.
But I cannot fault its effort to reduce down conflict to those factors that we all have in common in order to stem bloodshed and suffering.
A related test from the other end is that of Gyges’s ring, related by Plato in Book 2 of his “The Republic”.
By turning the ring on one’s finger, one could become invisible, and Plato argued that only if you took no advantage of your invisibility, could you argue your actions were moral.
Thanks
some seven or so years ago i went to talk by a couple of Taunton Quakers who had visited the occupied territories and spoken to both sides. I was impressed by the way they didn’t take sides but it was obvious what they thought was right. I took away the impression that they stood for the concept ‘the enemy’ is the ‘fallen side’ of human nature. It is hard to live up to but I think it is right.
Dictators and their acolytes seek to de-humanise people to make it acceptable to kill them. I watch our leaders avoid calling for a ceasefire and wonder if they have done this to the victims of this war. The media seem to have done so.
I was musing after last night’s most recent television born horrors from Israel that when ever you see a scene of the carnage reaped upon innocent Israeli’s or Palestinians, the blood stains are all the same colour – red.
Thank goodness for the rugby.
This was a Guardian comment pick on today’s Andrew Rawnsley article in the Observer:-
“If you say Israel ‘has the right’ to withhold power and water from Gaza then, a few days later, following a consequent outcry, say ‘it is not and never has been my view that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines,’ you are revealing three things about yourself. You have appalling judgement, you are dishonest and you are a reactive, rather than a proactive, leader.”
No prizes for guessing who this might be. Yet the future of the UK may well become dependent on this so-called leader. So sad!
Just one more comment on this situation. Isn’t it ridiculous that Joe Biden should ardently support the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement and yet not seek to help get a conflict resolution between the Palestinians and Israelis?