Replies

"Allow me once again to suggest that it there is a difference between acting rationally and acting morally...."

I think everyone on this thread understands this point. The problem is that you seem to be making a elementary mistake in your reasoning when you attempt to apply this point to main issue being discussed on this thread.

To remind everyone the original post was an article by Lee Harris that articulated a new paradigm for international relations in the post-Cold War era. Mr. Harris articulated in this article the concept of neo-sovereignty. This concept of neo-sovereignty questioned the validity of the inviolability of national sovereignty, absent external State agression, enshrined in internation relations since the Treaty of Westphalia. Mr Harris offered the idea that a different criterion in addition to external State agression be used to assess the legitmacy of claims to national sovereignty. The other concept that Mr. Harris proposed was the extent to which a government protected the Natural rights of its citizens.

To illustrate this idea let me use an analogy from Bankruptcy law. Under the Bankruptcy code it is possible to force a company into involuntary bankruptcy if a Federal judge determines that a company is being looted by its management to the detriment of its shareholders. If the judge rules that this is the case then the incumbent management team is removed and an interim team is appointed to manage the enterprise on behalf of the shareholders. Later on the shareholders are allowed to decide whether to keep the interim management team or choose someone new. Under this analogy, obviously, the company is the State, the shareholders are the citizens of the State, and the Judge is come type of multi-national body.

To fully understand Mr. Harris' line of thought it is necessary to be familiar with basic concepts of Natural Law. Natural Law posits the existence of God-given rights that inhere to all human beings. Natural Law theories also distinguish between acts "malum in se" (self-evidently evil acts) and acts "malum in re" (acts that are defined as being evil by law or custom). Malum in se acts such as child molestation are deemed to be evil because they volate the Natural Rights of another humamn being. Malum in re acts such as driving above the speed limit vary greatly even between Western nations.

Natural Rights are not revokable by any Government. The inhere to all human beings. The Founding Fathers indicted the British Crown because of its "train of usurpations" against these Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers invoked no other authority other than the "God of Nature". It doesn't matter that you take a plane from New York to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; your Natural Rights are not suddenly revoked when you cross the International Date Line. The concept of Natural Rights is anthema to States such as the Soviet Union where all rights are derived from the authority of the state or most Islamic states where rights are derived only from the Koran.

Now lets apply these ideas to the Middle Eastern cauldron. Based on Natural Rights criteria most of the Middle Eastern Islamic states violate various Natural Rights consistently. That being the case it follows that these sames states have clouds over the legitmacy of their claims of sovereignty. I would have no compunction about putting Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria under "receivership".

To deny the validity of Natural Law in judging State actions is to deny the validity of our own nation's founding. The mere fact that another culture asserts its "national sovereignty" is not sufficient to justify a State action. This is a mere gratuitous assertion by a State. Any State action must be measured against the standard of Natural Law in order for it attain legitimacy.

There is no middle ground for this doctrine; either it is true at all places and times or it is not true at all. A Government can choose to violate the Natural Rights of its citizens but when it does so it loses the "Mandate of Heaven".

I think everyone on this thread understands this point.

No, I rather think that nobody understands that point, and I take as evidence your most recent post. All along I have merely been suggesting that it is a mistake to regard Islamists as irrational. You have presented a wonderful case for why we ought to regard them as immoral, as though I somehow, at some point, suggested that they were moral actors, pursuing a moral goal. But, of course, I haven't - you have successfully attacked a position I do not hold, and refuted a case I do not make.

I am beginning to think that the term "rational" has become somewhat emotionally overloaded any more, carrying connotations that it really oughtn't carry. It seems that suggesting that Islamists act rationally in pursuit of their goals, as we act rationally in pursuit of our goals, and that those goals are chosen by them as a matter of their personal and cultural values, just as our goals are a result of our personal and cultural values - pointing out some similarities has been taken to mean that I think that both cultures are morally equivalent, or that their actions are equally valid. But of course, they aren't - it is precisely the moral tenor that differentiates us from them, and not the rationality or irrationality of their actions or ours. Which is really all I started out saying - that calling them irrational was not helpful, and not useful, and not accurate. I don't see why we shouldn't expect to see certain commonalities of action and of rhetoric between them and us - at the end of the day, we are all human beings, after all.

But somewhere along the line, suggesting that we are all humans was taken to mean that all humans are morally equivalent. For the life of me, I don't understand why - I still stand by my earlier post, in that I am the only one with any reasonable basis to call them "bad" or "evil", and that virtually everyone else pursuing this "deluded and irrational" explanation for their behavior cannot possibly condemn them in the terms they deserve. Follow this "deluded" or "irrational" path much farther, and about the most serious condemnation you'll be able to justify is that they are "sick" or "ill". As I said before - no, thank you.

I do not know why the fact that they can act as rationally as we do in pursuit of a less moral goal than ours is so violently and vehemently rejected by some, although I am tempted to think that pointing out similarities and hinting at a sort of common humanity between us and them interferes with the (perhaps necessary) process of demonization that allows us to do as we are doing to them without the pangs of conscience bothering us - casting others as subhuman has a long and storied history throughout the world, as it makes possible things that would not otherwise be possible in most societies. In which case, all I can say is that a perfectly reasonable case can be made that we should be acting towards them exactly as we are, or even that we should be acting more aggressively towards them than we are, and it can be made without resorting to lying ourselves about who or what they are. The Islamists radicalize their own people by making you, Westerner, into a cartoon devil. Let's not steal that particular page from their playbook.