I'm really divided over this argument, but I found this piece really interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=us_mid
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=us_mid
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
What to do with the Middle East...
I have been deeply interested and concerned with what's happened in the ME lately. After the murder of the US ambassador to Libya, prompted by a mysterious video that denigrates the prophet Muhammad, violent protests and riots have broken out throughout the ME. Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all seen a violent burst of anger from Muslims in reaction to this video. These riots are primarily aimed at U.S. embassies, U.S. property, and anything associated with the West. In Lebanon, for example, angry protesters attacked a KFC and Krispy Kreme to remove any trace of America. These outbursts have injured hundreds of people, even taking the lives of a scattered few. The protesters claim that "America is the devil" and suggest that the United States government has supported and protected the makers of this inflammatory video called "The Innocence of Muslims." In response, many have called for the United States to capture and punish the makers of this video, to show the world that we can institute "justice" (as one Iraqi put it).
This whole issue is really frustrating for me. I love the religion of Islam, I love the traditions of Islam, and I love reading the Qur'an. I deeply respect and appreciate the contributions of Muslims throughout the ages to science, philosophy, literature, mathematics, history, ethics, religion, and technology. I have spoken with, studied with, and lived with Muslims in my short time living in the ME. Many Muslims are good, God-faring people who are trying to live good lives and serve Allah. For that, I am deeply grateful.
In addition, I recognize that this violence does not represent every Muslim or even the religion of Islam. Nonetheless, I completely condemn the violence against Americans, American embassies, American companies, and the slurs against the American people and government. This video represents the beliefs of a few, and it was not sanctioned by the gov. nor by the American people. It is ridiculous to lash out at anything associated with the United States because a few, radical people decided to insult a great religion. Although I find this video extremely offensive (I haven't actually watched it, why waste my time?), I am deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression. I have many moral complaints against this video: it is insensitive, degrading, ignorant, backward, and incendiary. Despite this, it is their legal right to create such a monstrosity. I wish they wouldn't, but I will never deny them that basic liberty. It is the cost of freedom. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his recent visit to Lebanon, "Human liberty is always shared liberty."
Muslims should also recognize that these types of outbursts, stemming from their frustration, will only justify the skewed beliefs of the radicals who made this video and those who support it. Anti-Muslims will point to these riots and claim that all Muslims are violent, intolerant, anti-American, and unstable. Do not justify these beliefs and add fuel to the fire. It will only make matters worse and will complicate our relationship with one another.
Muslims have a right to be outraged about this video. But express this frustration in a civilized, legitimate, and peaceful way. Do not lower yourselves to the kind of narrow world-view that some people accuse you of having and also have themselves. The world is not "us and the enemy," and the United States is not the great Satan from the west. The situation is far more complex and nuanced than that. The U.S., without question, has made some awful mistakes in the ME and in reference to Muslims. Nonetheless, the U.S. gives billions of dollars of aid to Middle Eastern countries every year. Many Americans are pro-Muslim, and they support the efforts of the Arab spring to bring freedom and democracy to peoples who are long-overdue for such rights. But this freedom comes with a cost: there will always be others who will disagree with you. The world is not, and cannot, be monolithic. We must learn to accept and respectfully disagree with others, especially those who make these types of films. I am a full advocate of a pluralistic society, and I encourage everyone to recognize the intrinsic value of such a venture.
Having said all of this, I recognize that what's going on in the ME right now is not just about one film. These outbursts stem from a variety of causes. The Muslim people themselves are deeply frustrated about the nature of their countries and their freedom; they are concerned for their families, and they worry that the world is unraveling. I can understand these concerns completely. I, too, am frightened by the increasing secular movements that wish to fight religion at every corner and to justify immorality. I, too, am sick of the dictators who oppress their own people for wealth and power. I, too, am tired of ignorant people in the United States and elsewhere who have skewed views of the ME. And I recognize that US foreign policy has many problems. But these issues are NOT solved by the barrel of a gun.
To all Muslims: I am sorry for the insults, frustration, and oppression. To those protesting and attacking the U.S. embassies: there is a better way.
This whole issue is really frustrating for me. I love the religion of Islam, I love the traditions of Islam, and I love reading the Qur'an. I deeply respect and appreciate the contributions of Muslims throughout the ages to science, philosophy, literature, mathematics, history, ethics, religion, and technology. I have spoken with, studied with, and lived with Muslims in my short time living in the ME. Many Muslims are good, God-faring people who are trying to live good lives and serve Allah. For that, I am deeply grateful.
In addition, I recognize that this violence does not represent every Muslim or even the religion of Islam. Nonetheless, I completely condemn the violence against Americans, American embassies, American companies, and the slurs against the American people and government. This video represents the beliefs of a few, and it was not sanctioned by the gov. nor by the American people. It is ridiculous to lash out at anything associated with the United States because a few, radical people decided to insult a great religion. Although I find this video extremely offensive (I haven't actually watched it, why waste my time?), I am deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression. I have many moral complaints against this video: it is insensitive, degrading, ignorant, backward, and incendiary. Despite this, it is their legal right to create such a monstrosity. I wish they wouldn't, but I will never deny them that basic liberty. It is the cost of freedom. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his recent visit to Lebanon, "Human liberty is always shared liberty."
Muslims should also recognize that these types of outbursts, stemming from their frustration, will only justify the skewed beliefs of the radicals who made this video and those who support it. Anti-Muslims will point to these riots and claim that all Muslims are violent, intolerant, anti-American, and unstable. Do not justify these beliefs and add fuel to the fire. It will only make matters worse and will complicate our relationship with one another.
Muslims have a right to be outraged about this video. But express this frustration in a civilized, legitimate, and peaceful way. Do not lower yourselves to the kind of narrow world-view that some people accuse you of having and also have themselves. The world is not "us and the enemy," and the United States is not the great Satan from the west. The situation is far more complex and nuanced than that. The U.S., without question, has made some awful mistakes in the ME and in reference to Muslims. Nonetheless, the U.S. gives billions of dollars of aid to Middle Eastern countries every year. Many Americans are pro-Muslim, and they support the efforts of the Arab spring to bring freedom and democracy to peoples who are long-overdue for such rights. But this freedom comes with a cost: there will always be others who will disagree with you. The world is not, and cannot, be monolithic. We must learn to accept and respectfully disagree with others, especially those who make these types of films. I am a full advocate of a pluralistic society, and I encourage everyone to recognize the intrinsic value of such a venture.
Having said all of this, I recognize that what's going on in the ME right now is not just about one film. These outbursts stem from a variety of causes. The Muslim people themselves are deeply frustrated about the nature of their countries and their freedom; they are concerned for their families, and they worry that the world is unraveling. I can understand these concerns completely. I, too, am frightened by the increasing secular movements that wish to fight religion at every corner and to justify immorality. I, too, am sick of the dictators who oppress their own people for wealth and power. I, too, am tired of ignorant people in the United States and elsewhere who have skewed views of the ME. And I recognize that US foreign policy has many problems. But these issues are NOT solved by the barrel of a gun.
To all Muslims: I am sorry for the insults, frustration, and oppression. To those protesting and attacking the U.S. embassies: there is a better way.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Score One for Philosophy
http://www.economist.com/node/21556234
This is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. As robots grow more and more autonomous, they will need to be taught ethical principles to guide their actions. In particular, robots used for military purposes will face difficult dilemmas: should they attempt to take out a target if the risk of killing civilians is high? How high must the risk be for a robot to not kill its target? What if the target is responsible for killing hundreds, would the sacrifice of a few people be worth the cost? Even in more "tame" settings, robots will face difficult decisions: should a robot, perhaps one driving a car, swerve into pedestrians to avoid hitting another car?
Beyond these basic dilemmas, who or what will be responsible for robots that go astray? The engineer, the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner, or the robot? Can we really claim that a robot is morally responsible for some action? If not, and I don't see how we could blame a robot, who will be responsible for their immoral actions?
As of now, ethics will have an even more prominent place in modern society than ever before. Autonomous robots will need to be governed, they will need ethical principles to govern their behavior in all types of conceivable situations. Not only that, but they need viable principles that will conform with our intuitive notions of morality. More than anything else, I think the development of autonomous robots will show how difficult ethical theory making really is. Programming these robots will really push the issue: where will society fall? Consequentialism, deonotology, a rejection of both? Will a new theory surpass them all? Can we create a systematized and complete ethical theory to produce a robot that always behaves ethically? Without question, teaching ethics to machines will certainly sharpen our understanding of moral theory. Exciting frontier.
Perhaps the most exciting thing about this article is how it shows that modern technology cannot replace, nor should it, philosophy and the theory of morality. In fact, it forces them upon us.
Score one for philosophy.
This is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time. As robots grow more and more autonomous, they will need to be taught ethical principles to guide their actions. In particular, robots used for military purposes will face difficult dilemmas: should they attempt to take out a target if the risk of killing civilians is high? How high must the risk be for a robot to not kill its target? What if the target is responsible for killing hundreds, would the sacrifice of a few people be worth the cost? Even in more "tame" settings, robots will face difficult decisions: should a robot, perhaps one driving a car, swerve into pedestrians to avoid hitting another car?
Beyond these basic dilemmas, who or what will be responsible for robots that go astray? The engineer, the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner, or the robot? Can we really claim that a robot is morally responsible for some action? If not, and I don't see how we could blame a robot, who will be responsible for their immoral actions?
As of now, ethics will have an even more prominent place in modern society than ever before. Autonomous robots will need to be governed, they will need ethical principles to govern their behavior in all types of conceivable situations. Not only that, but they need viable principles that will conform with our intuitive notions of morality. More than anything else, I think the development of autonomous robots will show how difficult ethical theory making really is. Programming these robots will really push the issue: where will society fall? Consequentialism, deonotology, a rejection of both? Will a new theory surpass them all? Can we create a systematized and complete ethical theory to produce a robot that always behaves ethically? Without question, teaching ethics to machines will certainly sharpen our understanding of moral theory. Exciting frontier.
Perhaps the most exciting thing about this article is how it shows that modern technology cannot replace, nor should it, philosophy and the theory of morality. In fact, it forces them upon us.
Score one for philosophy.
Options for Syria
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/29/153926907/few-good-options-remain-to-end-syrian-attacks
Here is a good discussion about the current situation in Syria and the possible responses by the Western world. Joshua Landis, who speaks in this broadcast, is the director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma. I deeply respect his opinion, and I follow his blog on Syria daily: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/
This discussion points out the difficulties that surround any kind of intervention in Syria. Unfortunately, it seems that Syria will soon enter a brutal civil war along ethnic and tribal divisions. As the opposition to Assad's regime grows larger, the Syrian army has started arming Alawite thugs to assist their battles against the Free Syrian Army. These militias are the ones responsible for the massacre in Houla, with the government backing. Western forces are hesitant to directly intervene in Syria because of the obvious complexities in the region. Regardless, the opposition forces are receiving aid and even weapons from the West and other Arab countries. The West seems committed to forcing Assad out of power, but they are unwilling to give direct military aid. Some have drawn parallels with other civil wars in which the U.S. has provided aerial support for rebel forces in order to overthrow corrupt dictators. This method would avoid the problems of directly arming tribal forces while at the same time would give aid to the opposition and hopefully stop a full-scale civil war. Unfortunately, it may be too late for that. If the roaming militias gain enough military power, Syria will disintegrate into factions warring against each other. This would make intervention even more difficult because it will be much more difficult to decide which militia is (1) worth backing, and (2) powerful enough to stabilize the country.
Here is a good discussion about the current situation in Syria and the possible responses by the Western world. Joshua Landis, who speaks in this broadcast, is the director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma. I deeply respect his opinion, and I follow his blog on Syria daily: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/
This discussion points out the difficulties that surround any kind of intervention in Syria. Unfortunately, it seems that Syria will soon enter a brutal civil war along ethnic and tribal divisions. As the opposition to Assad's regime grows larger, the Syrian army has started arming Alawite thugs to assist their battles against the Free Syrian Army. These militias are the ones responsible for the massacre in Houla, with the government backing. Western forces are hesitant to directly intervene in Syria because of the obvious complexities in the region. Regardless, the opposition forces are receiving aid and even weapons from the West and other Arab countries. The West seems committed to forcing Assad out of power, but they are unwilling to give direct military aid. Some have drawn parallels with other civil wars in which the U.S. has provided aerial support for rebel forces in order to overthrow corrupt dictators. This method would avoid the problems of directly arming tribal forces while at the same time would give aid to the opposition and hopefully stop a full-scale civil war. Unfortunately, it may be too late for that. If the roaming militias gain enough military power, Syria will disintegrate into factions warring against each other. This would make intervention even more difficult because it will be much more difficult to decide which militia is (1) worth backing, and (2) powerful enough to stabilize the country.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Massacre Confirmed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18221461
The U.N. investigated the massacre in Houla, and they have confirmed that around 90 people, including women, children, and in some cases entire families were killed in yesterday's attacks.
The U.N. investigated the massacre in Houla, and they have confirmed that around 90 people, including women, children, and in some cases entire families were killed in yesterday's attacks.
Friday, May 25, 2012
More of the Same from Assad
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/2012525225217995929.html
The U.N. will at least criticize Assad for slaughtering his own people—this time around 50 people were killed in Homs. Does anyone else think that we should actually do something apart from pushing paper? The Syrian people have continually called upon the Western world for help to stop the bloodshed. Thousands of people are protesting throughout Syria for the end of Assad's rule. Without question, Assad's opposition could do more to protect human rights, but something has to be done with the Syrian government. The Middle East could use one less brutal dictator oppressing his people.
The U.N. will at least criticize Assad for slaughtering his own people—this time around 50 people were killed in Homs. Does anyone else think that we should actually do something apart from pushing paper? The Syrian people have continually called upon the Western world for help to stop the bloodshed. Thousands of people are protesting throughout Syria for the end of Assad's rule. Without question, Assad's opposition could do more to protect human rights, but something has to be done with the Syrian government. The Middle East could use one less brutal dictator oppressing his people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)