Beating the Bushes:

Consequentialism and Deontology

   My wife Annie teaches adults from all over the world who come to Ft. Lauderdale for the express purpose of improving their English language skills.  Although Annie is not a native English speaker [she's from Argentina], her facility with the "mother tongue" is second-to-none.  She is also a dynamite teacher, if I do say so myself.
   
    Once in a blue moon, she will ask me how I would explain an expression for people learning English.  The other night, while going over a lesson she was preparing, she asked me how to best explain "The ends justify the means."  She knew what it meant, but was a bit stuck on how  best to get it across to her students.  After giving the matter a bit of thought, I suggested:

   "You might tell them that ends are goals and means are the steps or acts we take in order to achieve those goals. Then you might tell them that sometimes, people believe that if the goal is great, any steps one takes to achieve it are OK."   

   Annie thought that my explanation was just fine. [Never let it be said that my wife isn't a woman of impeccable taste and discrimination!]

   On the news that evening, Keith Olbermann reported on Attorney General Michael Mukasey's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The issue at hand was whether or not "waterboarding" is torture and if so, whether or not it is legal.  Mukasey, like a vaudevillian of old, did a nifty soft-shoe.  Senator Richard Durbin [D-IL] sought to determine if, in Mukasey's view, waterboarding [or indeed any other form of torture] was more acceptable when greater, rather than lesser numbers of lives are at stake:

   "What about circumstances where the information would save lives, many lives?" Senator Durbin asked.  "Would you justify it?"

  "Those circumstances have not been set out," the A.G. answered.  "That is not part of the program. We don't know concretely what they are.  And we don't know how that would work."

   "You're talking about whether the ends justify the means!" Annie said to the television screen.  "What a perfect example." 

   How right she was.

   After Olbermann signed off, we got into a discussion about the moral implications of torture, illegal wiretaps and the like from an "ends justify the means" perspective . . .

   Ever since 9/11 the Bush Administration has sought -- and more often than not achieved -- greater authority to abridge civil liberties in the name of National Security.  These abridgments include warrantless wiretaps, domestic surveillance, rendition and the use of so-called "passive, non-lethal" forms of interrogation. And whether the abridgment comes via Executive Order or legislative enactment, the argument remains the same: these measures are absolutely necessary if we are to defeat our terrorist enemies.   

   In other words, the ends justify the means.

 In the world of moral philosophy we find two schools of thought which speak directly to this "ends/means" dichotomy:

   Consequentialism, a school which holds that the consequences  ["ends"] of a particular action or set of actions ["means"] form the basis for any valid moral judgment about the action.  For a Consequentialist, the morality of an action is determined by the morality of that action's outcome. 

     Deontological Ethics [Deontology], an approach to ethics that focuses on the wrongness or rightness of the acts ["means"] themselves, as opposed to the wrongness or rightness of the consequences ["ends"] of those actions.  For a Deontologist, it is all but impossible for an immoral action to result in a moral consequence. 

    Keeping these definitions in mind, it becomes rather clear that Mukasey's soft-shoe before the Judiciary Committee was an attempt at straddling the line between Consequentialism and Deontology.  Sorry Mr. Attorney General: you cannot have it both ways.  Actions do not become less immoral [or illegal] when the putative consequence of those actions grows in importance. 

   As stilted as this may seem, its a truth every parent has taught his or her child at one time or another: 

   "Just because Yankel did it doesn't make it right for you to do it. If Yankel were to jump off the roof or break a window on purpose would you follow suit?

  Although debates and disagreements between Consequentialists and Deontologists may be fascinating on some ideal plane, they are both difficult and vexatious when one is faced with issues of life and death.   Those who argue that America lowers itself to the level of its enemies by using torture to extract information are often labeled "soft on terrorism" or "allies of al-Qaeda."  And while this "throwing of red meat to the lions" may be good politics, it totally ignores the seriousness of the charge.  I believe it is written in the Gospel of Mark, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" 

    Those who engage in the "ends/means" debate when it comes to techniques of interrogation, warrantless wiretaps, legal protection for those telecommunications companies that facilitate said taps and denying protected "whistleblower" status to those who report abuses, seem to be forgetting that America is not the only country on the planet.  One country's "torture" is another's "persuasive technique;" one person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter."

   It is terribly difficult -- sometimes impossible -- to know precisely how best to deal with the terrorist enemy.  Indeed, we don't even possess a universal definition of what a terrorist or terrorism is.

   According to the State Department, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

 The F.B.I. has its sights set on "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

   According to the U.S.A. Patriot Act, terrorism is defined as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state."

   For my money, the best definition of terrorism comes from the Guardian's Brian Whitaker: "Terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of."   

   Don't get me wrong: terrorism is a grave, grave international threat.  Ridding the world of mass murderers, suicide bombers and agents provocateurs is of utmost importance.  And yet, if we here in America continue down the path of Consequentialism -- declaring in retrospect that whatever means we use are moral because the end is moral -- we will stand to lose a great deal more than we ever imagined possible: the very soul of our nation.

   From where I stand, Deontology just makes a heck of a lot more sense.

   The means don't always justify the ends.

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

What This Country Needs Is . . .

   Without question, Thomas Riley Marshall (1854-1925) is one of the more obscure figures in American political history.  A former Indiana governor and Vice President under Woodrow Wilson, Marshall was one of the drollest, wittiest politicians in American history. Marshall, who really didn't like being Vice President, had a wonderfully self-deprecating sense of humor:
   

• "A mother had two sons. One ran away and went to sea, the other became Vice President of the United States.  Neither one was ever heard from again."
• One day, Marshall, while sitting with his feet propped up on his desk, noticed a large group of tourists gawking at him as if he were an item on display.  Emerging from his office, he told the visitors, "If you look upon me as a wild animal, please be kind enough to throw peanuts at me."
• Marshall is best remembered -- if indeed, at all -- for a single comment he supposedly uttered one day in 1917: "What this country needs is a good five-cent cigar." 

 

   As is the case with many legendary quips, it is likely that Marshall never said it. More than one political trivia junkie has told me that the statement originated with a then-popular cartoon character named "Abe Martin"  The fictional Martin was a country bumpkin who sounded a lot like satirist Will Rogers.   

  The precise origin of Marshall's "five-cent cigar" witticism is completely irrelevant. What is totally relevant however, is the serious truth that lurks just beneath its surface: that democracies work best when citizens are engaged, when the populace is challenged to achieve a great goal together. It is precisely this -- the great challenge -- that has been totally lacking in American society for the past several generations. 

   When was the last time a leader or public figure -- any leader or public figure -- challenged the American public to do something more than go shopping?  How long has it been since we, the American people, have been left out of the democratic equation?  Is there nothing more required of us than to breathe, eat, sleep, pay as little tax as possible and then, once every four years, perhaps vote for evil of two lessers?  When was the last time a candidate for the presidency issued not a platform of promises but a clarion call to challenge?

   Give up?  Its been a long, long time.

   Back in 1932, FDR told a battered and broken nation that there was "nothing to fear but fear itself."  In so doing, he represented a sea change from the overall rapacity and high-living of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover years.  During World War II, he inspired Americans of all ages to join in a great campaign.  Everywhere from Caribou to Covina people were saving string, newspapers, and aluminum foil, buying savings bonds and working together toward a common goal.  One need only look at contemporary photos in Life, Look and The Saturday Evening Post to see the effects of his great challenge: people appearing not as individuals, but in groups, and generally with their arms around each others' shoulders.

   FDR and his administration created the "Manhattan Project," which melded the financial, intellectual and technological powers of America, Canada and England into a long-odds campaign with a short-term goal: to create an atomic bomb that would hasten the end of World War II.  FDR accomplished his goal in less than five years.

  In 1960, JFK challenged the American public to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  Like FDR, he too represented a sea-change from the stodgy, fear-enveloped fifties. Kennedy, who was more than 25-years younger than his predecessor, inspired Americans to live with greater "viga;" many began taking 50-mile hikes.  He also challenged the country to land a man on the moon within a single decade.  And although he did not live to see his audacious challenge bear fruit, we did so in less than ten years.

   Even LBJ, in his own way, inspired a great segment of American society -- to fight for equality in education, housing and employment. One byproduct of his challenge was the energizing of a young generation who learned the power of protest.

   With what has this nation been challenged in recent years?  To go shopping?  To place trust in leaders who will always "do the right thing" if only we will let them?  To accept massive tax cuts for the richest of the rich during a time of war? To aid and abet the cupidity of the upper 1%?

   Where oh where are the challenges of yesteryear?  And while we're at it, where or where are those who will issue those challenges?

   We're not talking about rocket science here.  Just plain old-fashioned inspiration.  America is in desperate need of a challenge; and I don't mean "victory in Iraq"  or "the total eradication of terrorism" -- whatever those illusive terms means.

    No I am referring to national challenges, national goals such as:

• A "Manhattan Project" to eliminate America's reliance on non-renewable energy within a single decade. This challenge to become a "green nation" not only will go a long way toward saving the planet; it will also create new industries with new jobs, new revenues and renewed hope.
• A national challenge to not only revamp, but to revolutionize the way we elect our leaders.  This might entail a dramatically shortened campaign season of somewhere between three and six months; an end to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on debasing and attacking one's opponents; total and mandatory public financing of all campaigns, with draconian consequences for those in violation.
• A challenge to utterly transform our "throw-away" society in which every item we purchase is packaged and carried away in separate non-biodegradable containers.  This can be done within a generation. 
• A national campaign to rebuild America's dangerously antiquated infrastructure.  What we have spent in Iraq to date could easily be used to repair, rebuild and restore every highway, bridge, public school and hospital in America.   Not only will this provide jobs; it will restore national pride.

   I am not a betting man, so I won't comment on the odds of any of these challenges being issued.  I will say, however, that America without a national challenge is not an America worthy of the name.

   In choosing our next president, we would do well to cast our votes not for the individual who seems to have an answer or program for every question, or one who is necessarily the most experienced or well-connected.  Rather, we could best serve ourselves and our great nation by casting votes for the individual who can best inspire, motivate and challenge.

   Indeed, we need the  leader who best knows that what this country needs is not a good five-cent cigar, but an energizing national challenge.

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

A Lesson From Sinai

   As this article is being written, Air Force One is touching down at Andrews Air Force Base; President Bush's eight-day tour of the Middle East has come to an end.  From Jerusalem and Ramallah to Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAR, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Mr. Bush has been scurrying about pushing his dream of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, seeking allies in his war of wits with Iran, and talking up the superiority of democracy over any other form of government.  He has also urged Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to consider the strain that high oil prices are having on the U.S. economy.

   The Saudi response to the president's heartfelt suggestion that they up oil production was essentially, "Go pound sand."
   
   Undaunted, the Bush administration notified Congress of its intention to sell the Saudis $120 million in precision-guided bombs.
   
   Yes siree, that's showin' them Ayrabs!

   From articles appearing in the international Arab press, it would seem that the Muslim-in-the-street was less than overwhelmed by the American president's visit.  Only in Israel -- where his popularity ratings are just a tad higher than they are here at home -- did he meet with anything even approaching approbation. 

   One cannot help but wonder how well President Bush understands the Middle East.  To aver that the Israelis and Palestinians will find  rapprochement in their decades-old struggle by the end of his presidency is -- sorry to say -- phantasmagoric at best, delusional at worst.

   Why?

   For the past five years or so, President Bush has made it abundantly clear that his administration's suggested cure for what ails the Middle East is democracy. Well, I'm here to tell you that as idealistic and admirable as that may be on paper, it is anything but in reality.

   To understand this, permit me to don my yarmulke and write not as a political op-ed blogger who happens to be an ordained rabbi, but as an ordained rabbi who happens to be a political op-ed blogger.

   Everyone, I am reasonably certain, is familiar with the Biblical story of the Exodus -- even if its the Cecil B. De Mille version.  We should all remember how, once freed from 400 years of Egyptian slavery, the Israelites

• Crossed the Red Sea [actually yam suf, the "Sea of Reeds"],
• Received the Ten Commandments,
• Dined on manna,
• Moaned, groaned and kvetched,
• Built the Golden Calf,
• Mistrusted both God and Moses,
• Sent forth 12 spies [or scouts] to check out the land of Canaan, and
• Eventually, after 40 long and grueling years, entered the Promised Land.    

      For the rabbis of old, one of the things that fascinated them most was why all of this took 40 years; why God chose not to lead them on a straight path that would have taken only 6 or 7 weeks.  Direct textual evidence provides one answer: God was punishing the former slaves for their lack of trust, their effrontery, and their utter faithlessness.

      Rabbinic commentary, however, provides a far more telling answer.

      One will recall that with the exception of Joshua bin Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and Caleb ben Jephunneh [Y'funeh] of the tribe of Judah, all those who crossed over into Canaan were born en route.  In other words, although they were the sons and daughters, the grandsons and granddaughters of slaves, they were not themselves the products of slavery; they were the children of freedom.
   

     From this, the rabbis discovered and taught an ineluctable truth: that while it is terribly easy -- though deeply lamentable and wrong -- to make a free person into a slave, it is horribly difficult -- though incredibly praiseworthy -- to make a slave into a free person.   This is why, the rabbis taught, God made the Children of Israel wander about in Sinai those 40 long years, rather than sending them directly from Egypt to Canaan.

     This, it seems to me, is precisely the lesson that has escaped our president and his administration; that the road from slavery [or tyranny or despotic  tribal monarchy] to democracy [or freedom] is fraught with ruts, rills and potholes 'aplenty. 

    Then too, Democracy as practiced in the United States of America is not necessarily the ideal paradigm for whatever will pass for Democracy within the Arab world.  Its the old "regrettably there are times when you get what you prayed for" syndrome. 

   The Palestinian paradigm is but one example.

   When the Palestinians went to the polls for the first time, they freely and overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, an armed Islamic movement.  That's who voters freely decided best represented their interests and aspirations.  So what did the Bush Administration do?  It flatly refused to recognize Hamas; it refused to acknowledge the will of the Palestinian voters.

   What sort of a signal or lesson did this communicate to the Muhammed or Fatima in the street?  That the Bush Administration supports Democratic elections only when the results coincide with its policy objectives?  That there is a decided double standard when it comes to Democracy in the Middle East?  That the Bush Administration "talks the talk" but refuses to "walk the walk?"

    Don't get me wrong; I believe that Democracy is the best form of government in the world -- for those who can handle it.  But just as the rabbis of old taught, its a terribly long road from slavery to freedom -- one that cannot be traversed in a few weeks [or a single election or even a single generation.]

    The journey from slavery to freedom -- or, in modern parlance, from tyranny or tribal monarchy to Democracy -- is one that indeed should be encouraged nurtured, supported.   But to expect its progress to be seamless, unimpeded or closely resembling the American experience is both foolish and shortsighted. 

     In most Western religions, the concept imitatio Deo [literally "imitating the Divine"] is of paramount importance.  In Judaism, as an example, we are taught: "Just as God is merciful, you should be merciful; just as God is just, you should be just . . . etc."  For purposes of this piece, we do well to remember that one of the other Divine attributes is patience.  In other words, "Just as God is infinitely patient, we must exercise patience."

    Not only is this a lesson from Sinai; it is a lesson in real politic.

     And since I have written this piece [my wife calls it a sermon] while wearing my kippah [yarmulke], I will end with the traditional Hebrew words Amen, ken y'hi ratzon.

    In other words, "Amen, may it be God's will . . ."

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

 

 

The Swift Boating of Barak Obama

   While hosting a dinner party at our home the other night, one of our guests -- a 30ish attorney with an MBA -- asked me out of the blue: "So what do you think about Osama?"  Catching the devilish glint in his eye, and knowing of his penchant for being a contrarian, I quickly gleaned that he was referring not to Osama bin Laden, but rather to Barak Obama.  Initially, I decided to play dumb:

   "I think he is a mass murderer masquerading as a Muslim Messiah." 

    From the look on his face, I could tell he was disappointed that I hadn't taken the bait.

   "No, I'm talking about Osama, the guy running for president," he said somewhat churlishly.

   "First of all," I said, a bit heatedly, "his name is SENATOR Barak Hussein OBAMA, not OSAMA, and secondly, please don't tell me you're one of those unfortunate souls who've fallen for this barrel of b.s."

   "All I know is what I hear," he said, "and from what I've heard, this guy's bad news."

   The conversation didn't get much better.  The only saving grace was that I knew he was living up to his contrarian self, and probably didn't really believe what he was saying.  He was likely just trying to get a rise out of me.  Nonetheless, it was terribly unsettling.

   The very next morning, I received an email from my assistant and man-of-all-work Art.  The email title was "Obama Misinformation?"  It turned out to be an email that a friend had forwarded to him containing the normal rants and baseless charges against Senator Obama, such as

• He is the son of a radical Muslim
• His middle name is Muhammad
• His mother was an atheist
• He was indoctrinated at a Wahabi midrasa in Indonesia
• He refuses to stand during the National Anthem
• He took his senatorial oath of office on a copy of the Koran
• His church -- Trinity Church of Christ --is both racist and anti-American

     Not wishing to either rehash or dignify these phony charges with any words of defense, I merely sent Art several Internet links.  For anyone interested in debunking these baseless myths, please go to www.snopes.com  put in the word "Obama," and follow the many links that will appear.  They provide the truth about Senator Obama . . .

    Now, the main issue here is why the Internet is being flooded with all these mendacious emails; why newspapers and so-called political Blogs are continuing the frontal assault -- call it "Swift Boating" -- of a United States Senator running for President of the United States.

   In a word: racism.

   It is an undeniable fact of political life that the front-runners are always subjected to far more scrutiny than the also-rans.  And, for the 120 hours between his victory in Iowa and his second-place finish in New Hampshire, Barak Obama was the front-runner.  Of course, in the seesaw battle betwixt Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards, that could all change once they get to Nevada or South Carolina, not to mention Florida, California or New York. 

   For the moment, however, Barak Obama is the one running around with a bulls-eye on his back.  Truth to tell, from everything I have read, from my encounters and conversations with Obama's people, he's is pretty much what he seems to be: a classy, earnest, incredibly articulate, passionate man who, more than most, has the talent to both inspire and uplift.

   So what's the problem?

   Some claim that the main drawback with Barak Obama comes in the area of experience; he's only been a senator for two years.  [It should be noted here, by the way, that sitting senators rarely win the presidency.  The last two were JFK in 1960 and Warren G. Harding in 1920].  I for one think this issue of experience is, frankly, overblown.  138 years ago, America elected as president, a man who had served but a single term in the House of Representatives -- a full 14 years before his election.  That man was Abraham Lincoln, who went on to become -- unquestionably -- this nation's greatest president.

   To my way of thinking, a president does not have to be a genius in all areas of governance.  Rather, he or she needs vision, common sense, and the ability to bring the so-called "best and brightest" into their administration.  They also have to be articulate and passionate enough to inspire, instruct and uplift.

    This world of nonsense about Senator Obama's so-called "Muslim indoctrination" is just that -- stuff and nonsense.  Those who are pushing and re-pushing the issue are, in my estimation, using the "M word" where two generations ago, they would have likely been using the "N word." 

   Yes, the underpinning of all these false reports is nothing more, nothing less than bad old-fashioned American racism. That people are so brazen, so deluded and base as to accuse Senator Obama of being a Muslim "Manchurian Candidate" is odious.  That people are willing to accept these charges as being true is beyond comprehension.  Then again, Grandpa Doc used to say "the masses are asses."

   As practiced in America, politics is a full contact, no-holds-barred sport, where the ends -- victory -- generally justify the means.  It is one thing to vet a candidate's record in the hope of finding inconsistency, a bone-headed vote or some youthful indiscretion.  It is another to turn a candidate into America's worst fear: a ticking time bomb sent to destroy the country of his birth.

   I for one am as yet undecided on just who my candidate will be.  I think the Democrats have fielded one of the most attractive, talented fields in years.  Indeed, I could proudly cast a vote for Clinton, Edwards, Obama or Richardson without a moment's hesitation in the general election.  That the Democrats offer this nation the possibility of electing the first woman, African American or Hispanic president says volumes about both the party and the country.  But to fall victim to the tenebrous shadows of 19th or 20th century racism is indeed, to fall from grace.

    America should be better than that . . .

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone