Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
We see Israeli air raids destroying buildings and homes in Gaza, killing thousands of civilians and children. We also witnessed what Hamas did to the Israeli civilians and soldiers, killing and kidnapping them in a brutal surprise attack.
Who do we support? Who do we blame? How do we arrive at our position? And why would we want to take a position at all? As an ordinary citizen living in India, we have no skin in the game in this conflict. But we still take a stand because it’s a way of communicating where we stand both morally and ideologically – in a way, signalling where we stand on our own domestic issues. We also hope our voice can, in even a small way, help persuade those in power to cease violence and work towards peace and justice.
When it comes to taking a position on any social or political issue, we are often influenced by our ideological beliefs, personal experiences and religious biases. Plus, there is the influence of the media. So, for one, do we know what our influences are? Do we choose our influences? What drives our choices?
The one thing we can all do is to resist the temptation to justify one form of extremism, intolerance, or violence as less evil than another. Ultimately position taking ought to be an optimistic enterprise. We seek the triumph of systemic justice, the cessation of oppression and discrimination and the prevalence of freedom and harmony. The last thing we want is to indulge in self-righteous finger-pointing and keep commenting on continued atrocities.
One of the most important distinctions we need to make when taking a position is between ideology and morality. Ideology is a set of beliefs or principles that guide our actions and shape our worldview. It has systemic connotations and is defined by our vision of the kind of society we want to build. Morality, on the other hand, is about the norms and values that guide our conduct – it is about the behaviours we endorse, condone and condemn. If ideology points to a goal, morality is about the means. To repeat the cliché that the end justifies the means only opens the doors to moral erosion.
Ideology is a useful framework for understanding reality and pursuing our political goals, but it can also be dangerous as a dogma that blinds us to alternative views and justifies violence. In contrast, morality is our view of how individuals and groups ought to behave given certain situations. If we consider the kidnapping or killing of a non-combatant family member by a political organization as repugnant, we should not condone such an act in any other context too. If you condemn using fake news and images for propaganda by your opponents, do not condone it when your side does it. That is moral consistency
A common mistake we make when taking a position is to confuse our ideology with morality. This can lead us to rationalise atrocities by members of our side based on our ideological inclinations. For instance, a worker walking up to his managers and killing them and their families is not class war. It is murder. No systemic justice can be established through random acts of terror.
How do we avoid this trap? One way is to apply the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. As a corollary, do not treat others the way you don’t want them to treat you. Conflicts and harmful ideas need to be fought empirically, morally and ideologically. Wars need to adhere to the rules of war. And even civil disobedience, resistance movements and revolutions need to abide by a moral code.
Taking a moral stand in a polarised world is not easy. It requires us to challenge our own assumptions and biases, as well as those of others. It requires us to mentally situate ourselves on both sides of a conflict zone and imagine what it is to be a common resident on either side.
Remember, “whataboutery” leads to infinite absurdities. We are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past so that we don’t repeat those. However, a whataboutist uses the mistakes committed by his ideological opposition to justify the current crimes of his side. He also uses whataboutery to shut down any moral demands by the opposition. It’s an amoral and dangerous position to take.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Where do you stand? What is your moral position? Does your ideology come in the way of your morality? How do you deal with it?
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.