Posts
Christian institutionalized religious conviction or faith or strong sense of belonging has, as Nietzsche observed just before declaring the death of God, had an important part to play in the moral history of humanity. True, it has also been a source of unspeakable atrocities and regularly played the role as a default authorization of whatever scheme of brutality and oppression that worldly powers have embarked on. But it is hard to deny that the idea of people being worthy equal respect and consideration just for their own sake has made a lasting impact on (Western) ethical thought – also regarding ethical theories that have come to strongly contest mainstream versions of christian ethics, such as Kantian ethics, liberal theories of basic moral rights or the consequentialist tradition.
But what has become of this "message of love" - the idea that we are to love our 'neighbor' as ourselves, and do unto others as we would have them do to us - outside of the growing sophistication and influence of secularized ethics? For many of my friends who identify themselves as christian believers, the important thing seems not to be the supposed divine backing of this idea, but rather the other way around. Relieved they find in the faith that they find a need for in order to enjoy a sense of coherence, harmony, meaning - or what you might like to call it - what their reason prescribes anyway. Simply put, they are morally decent people that also happen to have certain needs that a christian faith seems to meet. Fine by me!
Besides that, one powerful and influential branch of christianity is not that preoccupied with this side of the gospel, but rather focus on the very core of all the monotheistic religions: awe and obedience in the face of an alleged supreme authority. And, as we know, one of the commands of the christian God is to spread the gospel. So is this what it is about when the US christian organization Faith Comes by Hearing decides to react to the current almost indescribable misery and agony of the Haitian people by sending over an audio bible gadget called "The Proclaimer" capable of relaying the message to 300 people at a time, reportedly intended for "individuals and nations who hunger to hear". 600 of them are already on the way, reports ABC News, and more will be coming. And it's certainly not a tiny gift that the christian faith in this case has inspired: the little darlings are rumored to cost $157 each and to be sophisticated enough to actually work even on the moon (where, as an aside, PZ Myers suggest they may just as well be sent instead).
The utter moral perversity of the action should be obvious to anyone being just mildly drawn to the basic content of the message of love, be it in a religious or a secularized version. Not only will the very transportation and distribution of "The Proclaimer" add to the severe logistical problems faced by aid personnel, just imagine the insult being spitted right in the face of the victims of the Haitian disaster when their hunger and thirst is responded to with this particular version of food for thought. But, of course, the worst of it all is to imagine what the money spent on this mission could have been used for instead. Well, this just has to be another of those prime examples of the cynicism that so often result from the missionary ambitions of christian believers, hasn't it?
Well, actually, reading what a representative of FCBH says to the ABC News, missionary activity is the last thing that this action is about! On the contrary, according to ABC News, "the Albuquerque-based organisation says it is responding to the Haitian crisis by 'providing faith, hope and love through God's word in audio'". So, this is what the message of love is about nowadays when none of those advances that have been made with the help of secular reasoning through the history of ethics are informing it: the pure pastoral version! Considering that what people in Haiti are primarily hungering for is hardly "to hear", they might just as well have sent over a few crates of this:
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Saturday, 26 December 2009
A Starter and a note on COP 15
So, this is just to get things going. For those of you who may have an interest in my academic doings, just follow the "learn more here" link to the left!
What is more timely than saying something of the debunked COP 15 climate change policy summit. I've already encountered a chorus of reactions coming from such diverse sources as high politicians (several of them present in Copenhagen), supposedly well-informed academics and journalists, as well as the regular Joe and Jane, all blaming developing countries – in particular, China – for the meager outcome. The problem with this analysis is its obvious lack of consideration of the nature of the political challenge inherent in these negotiations, and how the various parties (if not all) so bluntly fail to face up to it.
Climate change policy would have been easy had it not been for its costliness for us all (in terms of money, short-term comfort, etcetera). True, the overall costs are justifiable in view of the threats faced – which is the basis of the idea of having a global upper limit on climate influencing emissions. However, the costs also need to be distributed in some way between the involved parties, and this is where the problems start. For what we see is what game and decision theorists usually refer to as a game of chicken, where each party do its best to press the others to agree to a deal serving this individual party's self-interest. This may result in a deal being made. However, since this takes time and since the climate change scenarios grow grimmer and less predictable the more time that passes, this strategy creates a threat of locking climate change policy into a situation where we all become magnificent losers due to our success in serving our own interests. This is what, in research, is often called a prisoner's dilemma. One of the really nasty features of this dilemma is that there is no way out of it: the only way to escape is to avoid being locked into it, and there are numerous strategies for that.
Now, one would have supposed that all the world leaders, as well as their numerous advisers understand this, since it is basic course 1A for anyone who goes into politics to learn to spot prisoner's dilemmas and to construct strategies to avoid them. And in the case of COP 15 and climate change policy, the first obvious step is to stop playing the chicken game! In the present case, as in most other cases, what is needed for that is to stop being entirely guided by self-interest (or to expand one's self-interest to include the interests of the others). That is, recognize that quite reasonable worries had by all parties in connection to the costs of climate policy. This is where the flaw of the "the Chinese did it"-analysis becomes obvious.
China's economic growth over the past few decades is stunning, but essentially China is still a rather poor country if we look at the wealth/citizen. So what worries China is that its (future) citizens will be robbed of too much forthcoming growth as a result of a climate policy deal. Developed countries have similar worries, but rather regarding loosing too much of already acquired wealth. At the same time, both sides know that a price in terms of lost wealth will have to be paid.
What this means is that, when i deal is not reached, no particular side is more to blame than the other, unless a move has been made that can be understood as either blatantly destroying the prerequisites for negotiation, or by trying to play chicken in disguise. The "China did it"-analysis is a claim regarding the first of these strategies for placing blame. China just refused making a deal, that is true, but why did they do that? Had developed countries invited China and the rest of the developing world to consider a generous offer, we could indeed have concluded that China did it. But this is not what happened. The developed world extended a shame bid, particularly through the declarations made by the US quite early on about a, given the circumstances, quite ridiculous 4% reduction of fossil fuel emissions. This opening bid of the richest and most powerful country of the world made clear to China as well as the rest of the world that this player would indeed play chicken, and the rest of us should just be grateful for being allowed to play the part of the suckers. So China walked away from the table, and quite reasonably so.
Simply put, the COP 15 could have become something, had the developed world only extended a serious offer. In view of the prospective burdens on developing countries of any climate policy deal, this did not occur.
What is more timely than saying something of the debunked COP 15 climate change policy summit. I've already encountered a chorus of reactions coming from such diverse sources as high politicians (several of them present in Copenhagen), supposedly well-informed academics and journalists, as well as the regular Joe and Jane, all blaming developing countries – in particular, China – for the meager outcome. The problem with this analysis is its obvious lack of consideration of the nature of the political challenge inherent in these negotiations, and how the various parties (if not all) so bluntly fail to face up to it.
Climate change policy would have been easy had it not been for its costliness for us all (in terms of money, short-term comfort, etcetera). True, the overall costs are justifiable in view of the threats faced – which is the basis of the idea of having a global upper limit on climate influencing emissions. However, the costs also need to be distributed in some way between the involved parties, and this is where the problems start. For what we see is what game and decision theorists usually refer to as a game of chicken, where each party do its best to press the others to agree to a deal serving this individual party's self-interest. This may result in a deal being made. However, since this takes time and since the climate change scenarios grow grimmer and less predictable the more time that passes, this strategy creates a threat of locking climate change policy into a situation where we all become magnificent losers due to our success in serving our own interests. This is what, in research, is often called a prisoner's dilemma. One of the really nasty features of this dilemma is that there is no way out of it: the only way to escape is to avoid being locked into it, and there are numerous strategies for that.
Now, one would have supposed that all the world leaders, as well as their numerous advisers understand this, since it is basic course 1A for anyone who goes into politics to learn to spot prisoner's dilemmas and to construct strategies to avoid them. And in the case of COP 15 and climate change policy, the first obvious step is to stop playing the chicken game! In the present case, as in most other cases, what is needed for that is to stop being entirely guided by self-interest (or to expand one's self-interest to include the interests of the others). That is, recognize that quite reasonable worries had by all parties in connection to the costs of climate policy. This is where the flaw of the "the Chinese did it"-analysis becomes obvious.
China's economic growth over the past few decades is stunning, but essentially China is still a rather poor country if we look at the wealth/citizen. So what worries China is that its (future) citizens will be robbed of too much forthcoming growth as a result of a climate policy deal. Developed countries have similar worries, but rather regarding loosing too much of already acquired wealth. At the same time, both sides know that a price in terms of lost wealth will have to be paid.
What this means is that, when i deal is not reached, no particular side is more to blame than the other, unless a move has been made that can be understood as either blatantly destroying the prerequisites for negotiation, or by trying to play chicken in disguise. The "China did it"-analysis is a claim regarding the first of these strategies for placing blame. China just refused making a deal, that is true, but why did they do that? Had developed countries invited China and the rest of the developing world to consider a generous offer, we could indeed have concluded that China did it. But this is not what happened. The developed world extended a shame bid, particularly through the declarations made by the US quite early on about a, given the circumstances, quite ridiculous 4% reduction of fossil fuel emissions. This opening bid of the richest and most powerful country of the world made clear to China as well as the rest of the world that this player would indeed play chicken, and the rest of us should just be grateful for being allowed to play the part of the suckers. So China walked away from the table, and quite reasonably so.
Simply put, the COP 15 could have become something, had the developed world only extended a serious offer. In view of the prospective burdens on developing countries of any climate policy deal, this did not occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)