Tortured Justification of Torture

A bigger evil does not justify a lesser evil, I agree with you there. However I disagree when you say <<< Collateral damage is always considered an unintended consequence of war. Nobody, at least in theory, intentionally perpetrates collateral damage >>>

Those who design weapons like the moab bomb know that it is going to kill people across a wide parameter. They are premeditating mass murder and they are mass murderers. George Bush is a mass murderer, he sent dozens of cruise missiles into the heart of baghdad in order to assasinate one man, he dropped 4 2000lbs bombs on a civilian neighbourhood restaurant to kill that same one man, and these are just two cases. No two ways about it. All wars fought with such weapons are illegal and immoral regardless of the rhetoric.

#31 by Saminasha on February 11, 2006 12:45pm PT


So, whatever Israel does on its own dime is fine with you....


well.. yes..

Re: # 33
masadi,

Thanks for your comments. What you have raised are valid points for another discussion. I just wanted to tackle the comparison Sam Harris made on purely theoretical basis. That is why I added the words ```at least in theory`` in the sentence you quoted.

Rafi

Dear Rafi Aamer,
Your article on chowk.com inspired me to read Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It was one of the most provocative books I have ever read. Sam Harris has shared his truth openly and honestly. In spite of my many disagreements with him I enjoyed reading his challenges to traditional ideologies, beliefs and blind faiths. He is very emotional, sentimental and passionate about his logical and rational thinking.
If someone asked me, “What are the three most important ideas presented in the book, I would have said, “ Sam Harris believes that for the future evolution of humanity we need
…human beings motivated by love and compassion
…communities and cultures based on secular and humanistic values
and
…the abolition of organized religions and blind faiths which are major obstacles to human growth and progress.
If someone asked me three shortcomings of Sam Harris as a writer I would say,
…his thinking is over-inclusive. I felt as if there were 300 ideas in 300 pages. It reminded me of a Chinese Buffet with 100 items for dinner.
It was difficult to eat or even taste all the items. As a reader I felt overwhelmed and bombarded with ideas.
…Sam Harris is very reactionary regarding the Sep 11th, 2001 tragedy. His political views about the world situation in the last four years blur his insights into the struggles of humanity about the beliefs of God and religions over the last four thousand years.
and
…Sam Harris sounds more anti-religion than pro-Humanism. His bias, even prejudice, against Middle Eastern monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and especially Islam—is quite pronounced, compared to the soft corner in his heart for Buddhism.
Sam Harris has tried to build a case against blind faith from two sides: scientific and rational thinking from the outside and spiritual and mystical experiences from the inside. His arguments seem philosophically strong but psychologically weak. He starts his discourse as a left wing philosopher but ends as a right wing political activist. By favoring war and torture to promote peace he becomes his own worst enemy. His arguments are least convincing when he attacks Mohandas Gandhi and Noam Chomsky. Challenging Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussain is one thing but to justify bombing Afghanistan and Iraq is another matter. From that position he sounds like a more rationalizing than rational writer.
As a secular humanist I support his criticisms of organized religions but as a peace loving person I cannot agree with his support of torture and war.
It seems to me that Sam Harris as a writer has serious unresolved conflicts, philosophically and psychologically. Since he writes with passion he can provoke strong emotional reactions. You can love or hate but cannot ignore such a writer. He seems to have a PhD in controversy. Since he is young and energetic, maybe with the passage of time he might realize that winning arguments is easier than winning hearts, confrontation is easier than compassion and gaining knowledge is easier than acquiring wisdom.
As a psychotherapist I realize that developing a humanistic philosophy by reading hundreds of books is easier than developing a humanistic personality, for which one needs to do some profound, painful and complex emotional work. Some atheists have personalities as extremist as those of their religious opponents. I feel that Sam Harris has a long way to go to embrace inner and outer peace and develop compassion for Easterners rather than promoting war as a Westerner.
Dear Rafi.
I would like to thank you and the editors of chowk.com who inspired me to read The End of Faith. I do not have faith in organized religions but I have faith in myself and the future of humanity. I am hopeful that we as human beings will evolve to a stage where we will rise above the man made dichotomies of East and West, Muslim and Non-Muslim, First and Third World, Us and Them and realize that our enemies are our distant cousins.
Sincerely,
Sohail

dr sahib

There is something missing in the head of a left-wing philosopher who cannot see an occasion to become a right-wing political activist. Yes, Gandhi was one such left-wing philosopher, and for that mistake he is criticized.

dear kaalchakra
would you be kind enough to share your views about the personality, philosophy and politics of Mohandas Gandhi. it seems as if you have strong views about him. sincerely sohail