The Moral War–The Ethical Struggle

The World Wars, wars whose sheer physical devastation and toll on civilian populations was without historical precedent, forced many to take pause and ask how bellicosity can be reconciled with morality.  The answer is twofold—but these two segments are indeed exclusive of one another .

If one is to accept a universal morality, no one would ever make war at all, as all would be in agreement on what morality has been violated, and rather

than plunge into war, one would simply execute anyone who dare speak out against the universal morality, in the same  way in which  a common murderer amongst a medieval village would be quickly found and instantly killed.  History has, however, demonstrated this to not only not be the case now, but indeed, never  to have been the case throughout history.  So much for a catholic morality.

Then the second segment of this paradox must contain a more realistic equation and indeed it does do.  There is no universal morality—not in peace and more apparently not in war. This is why ‘moral’ condemnation of Anwar al-Awlaki’s call for further Islamist terrorist attacks in London is so mis-placed(however well meaning).  Al-Awlaki has his morality and in this sense he is a moral man.  His Christian, Jewish, Hindu and moderate Moslem opponents have their moralities as well—for them he is an un-moral man.  I can see both sides of the argument—and so can most of you, though you’ll not admit it.

Consider the phrase ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist’—it’s so cliché we don’t even know what it means.  So continue considering the above notion whilst you read what follows: Al-Awlaki is opposed to Occidental armies making war on Moslem countries, it’s a grievance shared either in part or entirely  by myself,  Sir Peter Tapsel MP(Tory), Nick Clegg MP(Liberal Democract), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), Claire Short former MP (Labour), George Galloway former MP(Respect), Nick Griffin MEP(BNP) and Caroline Lucas MP(Green).  Surely some if not most of these people are ‘moral people’(for most of those reading this), and surely even those amongst this list who one may dislike  by no stretch of language could be called terrorists.  You see, we are all moral people, we each have a set a morals to which we abide—so too did Stalin, Hitler,  Napoleon, Thatcher and Scargill.  The question is then not one of morals but one of ethics—manners to you and me.

Whilst Islamist lunatics may indeed share some of the utterly legitimate moral grievances of mainstream politicians, they tend to go about stating their grievances in a way that is supremely  un-ethnical.  Ethics seeks to create universal rules in which to frame our moral arguments—and even ethnical rules are up for debate.  I though share the very widespread ethical view that no matter the grievance, it is wrong to target civilians in all but a situation of total war and even then civilian casualties are to be avoided to the greatest possible extent.  This is something that was ignored for example by Blair and Clinton in Serbia who targeted  hospitals and television centres with their modern planes and it is something ironed by the Islamists of the New York,  Madrid and London terrorists bombings, it was something ignored by the IRA bombings at Harrods, Canary Warf and the Brighton Hotel—just to name three of the numerous IRA attacks, that have killed many more people than any Islamist’s bomb.  It is for this reason that it is crucial to condemn these attacks as patently un-ethnical, but indeed if we condemn these  attacks on moral grounds, we are no better than the Islamists who themselves claim to have a moral paradigm that is universal and to voice their condemnations and launch their attacks on just these grounds.  They say the non-Islamist is morally reprehensible and must be exterminated—so we mustn’t say the same of him, lest we all fancy a jolly good blood bath.

At the root of meta-ethnics is pragmatism—a means of getting the largest possible number of people to behave humanly and justly(in the Platonic sense) to one another without compromising the ability of an individual or other corporate body to operate under a distinct morality whether it be a Socratic morality, an Epicurean one, a Christian one, a Hellenic one, a Jewish one, a Hindu one, a Zen one,  Moslem one, a secular liberal one,  a Nietzschesque one, a Marxist one or even an anarchisticic one.

This seems to be something that David Cameron implicitly understands.  If and perhaps more likely, when the next terrorist attack occurs—I suspect Cameron will react in a measured and sensible way that will seek to redress whatever crisis unfolds swiftly and empirically,  without resorting to the histrionics and crazed moral zeal of Tony Blair.  Indeed the Islamists declared a jihad on Britain and Blair declared on the Islamic world what if he were a Moslem what have been called a jihad by the likes of the Sun.  By fighting moralistic dogma with moralistic dogma, Blair wasn’t helping to fight Islamism but did more to embolden the moral strength of Islamism than they could have hoped for in their maddest dreams.  There’s nothing more galvanising to a  moralist seeking to impose one’s morality on another,  than a self-professed ‘enemy’ trying to impose their morality on him.  Blair did to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq what the Islamists are trying to do to all of the Occident—namely turn it into a land where they  enforce their universal conception of reality at the point of a sword.

Whilst Cameron’s ethical, empirical and pragmatic approach to Islamism is to be applauded, Blair and al-Awlaki’s common ethos is still amongst us.  US based sailor Abby Sunderland has sadly become ‘lost at sea’ in her attempt to circumnavigate the world.  Already people right cross the world that they, unlike her, know nothing about, are attempt to enforce their universal morality unto her.  They are in essence declaring jihad on young Abby along with her supportive parents in attempting to say her decision to explore the world violated their sense of morality which they’d like to enforce on her and her family.  Like many amongst the Islamists, so jealous of Occidental wealth, I detect a bit of jealousy for Abby’s modestly wealthy family, in some of the reproach being heaped at them right cross the blog-sphere.

This jihad against Abby is similar to the moral war launched by the Dutch authorities against the heroic Laura Dekker, who herself attempted to circumnavigate the globe.  Like the corrupt Saudi Government(Blair’s good mates, lest we forget) allowing the stoning and physical mutilation of  women attempting to drive a car in Saudi Arabia, the Dutch authorities imposed their warped moralities unto Laura, saying she couldn’t go sailing—and as all moralists do—including the Islamists mind you, they say their counsel is for ‘our own good’—the three favourite words of every moralistic dictatorship from North Korea to Zimbabwe.  Unlike the coward they wanted Laura to be, she defied this ruling and sailed off anyway.  Laura is my freedom fighter, Abby Sunderland is my freedom fighter—Blair and al-Awlaki are both my terrorists.  I wonder where you stand?

You see terms like crusade and jihad are just another name for a personal morality that is attempted to be extended with force.  I don’t care if one votes for New Labour and I don’t care if one goes to a radical Mosque—though I would personally rather them do other things.  But so long as New Labour voters and radical Moslems don’t impose their will on the population in a violation of my ethnical sovereignty, they may do as they wish.  The problem is that Blair and the Islamists both overstep ethnical lines.  Contrast this with Dekker and Sunderland—neither of whom breached anyone’s ethnics, by offending your sick provincial morals.

–This humble blog is dedicated to Anastasia, who has just gone flying an aeroplane for the first time—she too is my freedom freighter.

Author: Adam Garrie

Director at Eurasia Future View all posts by Adam Garrie