Islamophobia

[vimothy]

Exactly. Vimothy has done this before, where he's refused to say this or that terrorist attack could have a reason behind it (which is what I mean by rational). I'm not sure what the agenda behind that is, that asking why people would do such a thing somehow legitimates it perhaps? Plenty of the worst violence has been rational.

By that standard the Holocaust was "rational", because it was an action with a goal (killing all Jews). By that standard, any form of mass murder or political repression is rational, because it is an action with a goal (breaking the spirit of one's opponents, e.g.). All the mass slaughters of the 20th century were "rational", because there were agendas that led people to commit them. Indeed, by the same standard, anything is rational unless it is accidental (circular argument). There are "reasons" for everything, aren't there? I might decide that it's in my political interests to murder a baby and serve it, spit roasted on a bed of rice to his parents. It's a "rational" action by your standard, because it fits into a broader strategy of terror.

EDIT: So "rational" loses all meaning. Yes, there is a "reason" that people turn mentally ill women into remote control bombs: sectarian hatred.

 

[vimothy]

How rational is mass murder, torture, sectarian hatred? How rational was Saddam, Stalin, Mao?

The politics of moral relativism --

 

[vimothy]

If you accept that it is desirable (or even necessary) to kill and maim a load of unarmed people, then it's a perfectly rational thing to do. However I think it's reasonable to question *why* someone wants to kill and maim a load of people they've probably never met and certainly never been harmed by. So you go one step further back along the chain and ask how someone could benefit from this: perhaps they're hoping to foment civil war for the purposes of increasing their own power. Which could be described as rational: horrible, but rational.

Let's run with your example, Mr Tea: how rational is murder in the service of your own megalomania?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

How rational is mass murder, torture, sectarian hatred? How rational was Saddam, Stalin, Mao?

The politics of moral relativism --

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate - how 'rational' was the US military action in Vietnam for example? Years of bombing using the most technologically advanced equipment against a low-level insurgency hidden in the jungle. Millions dead for what purpose?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Let's run with your example, Mr Tea: how rational is murder in the service of your own megalomania?

I repeat: it depends what you mean by 'rational'. I don't think anyone here is defending the actions of murderers just because they 'rationally' serve the murderers' interests viz. illegitimate tyrannical power. Can we just call such actions 'totally fucking abhorrent' and leave it at that? I hope that's sufficiently un-relativistic for you!

 

[vimothy]

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate - how 'rational' was the US military action in Vietnam for example? Years of bombing using the most technologically advanced equipment against a low-level insurgency hidden in the jungle. Millions dead for what purpose?

I don't think it was necessarily any more or less rational than any other action in the Cold War -- rationality is not an absolute scale -- I use it to describe the new politics and philosophies of post-Enlightenment liberal societies, as opposed to the politics of totalitarian atavisms, a la Paul Berman. Perhaps there was little gained in terms of advancing freedom after the US pulled out, but "irrational" in the Bermanian context would be killing people to advance the cause of animal or tribal goals: domination, enslavement, joy in murder. "Irrational" in the context you use it could just as easily be pulling out of Vietnam.

I repeat: it depends what you mean by 'rational'! I don't think anyone here is defending the actions of murderers just because they 'rationally' serve the murderers' interests viz illegitimate tyrannical power. Can we just call such actions 'totally fucking abhorrent' and leave it at that?

You describe the suicide bomb attack as rational, because you go back to the underlying goals behind it: killing lots of apostates to try to spark civil war and so eventually acheive some measure of political domination. But how rational are these goals, really?

 

[Gavin]

Why conflate "rational" and "moral"? The Holocaust was rational in that it took certain currents of ethnic nationalism to their ends, with horrific results. Explaining violence helps us understand it, and understand how to stop it, instead of making it some mystical shibboleth involving some ontological evil in humanity. Downs Syndrome bombers is just the latest desperate installment in the rational goal to ramp up violence in Iraq, which many parties have seen in their interests. The Vietnam War continues to be explained, by supporters and detractors, in rational terms. What do we gain by dubbing it irrational and unexplainable?

Well Gavin, I'm interested to hear what you have to say to this.....

That I enjoy making you sputter and flail when I suggest -- quite rationally -- that powerful institutions exercise tremendous influence over the global economy and manipulate it specifically in their own interests at the expense of working/lower classes? People have linked to plenty of things all over the messageboard about this, I don't feel the need to waste my time responding to your feigned interest. But feel free to beat whatever drum you were about to beat.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

killing people to advance the cause of animal or tribal goals: domination, enslavement, joy in murder.

but that describes the Vietnam experience right? you know killing in worship of the neo-liberal deities of global capitalism

 

[Gavin]

What the fuck, animal and tribal goals? People kill for money, mostly.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

What the fuck, animal and tribal goals? People kill for money, mostly.

So historically wars have been fought primarily over money/economic incentives? Hmmm not sure about that...

 

[Mr BoShambles]

That I enjoy making you sputter and flail when I suggest -- quite rationally -- that powerful institutions exercise tremendous influence over the global economy and manipulate it specifically in their own interests at the expense of working/lower classes? People have linked to plenty of things all over the messageboard about this, I don't feel the need to waste my time responding to your feigned interest. But feel free to beat whatever drum you were about to beat.

Are you deliberately missing my point? I don't doubt that the global political economy is comprised of often highly assymetric power relations and self-serving agendas. But the use of the term neo-liberal as a perjorative without any attempt on your behalf to validate any of your claims, highlight causal linkages, or demonstate even the most basic understanding of neo-liberal economic philosophy is tedious.

But fuck it, lets all just be vague and avoid any worthwhile discussion about such matters.

 

[Gavin]

So historically wars have been fought primarily over money/economic incentives? Hmmm not sure about that...

Care to posit something else so an actual discussion can take place?

 

[Gavin]

Are you deliberately missing my point? I don't doubt that the global political economy is comprised of often highly assymetric power relations and self-serving agendas. But the use of the term neo-liberal as a perjorative without any attempt on your behalf to validate any of your claims, highlight causal linkages, or demonstate even the most basic understanding of neo-liberal economic philosophy is tedious.

But fuck it, lets all just be vague and avoid any worthwhile discussion about such matters.

Fuck off, I'm posting on a messageboard in my idle moments, not trying to publish in a poli sci journal. If you've got something specific you want to hash out on this forum, post it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Why conflate "rational" and "moral"? The Holocaust was rational in that it took certain currents of ethnic nationalism to their ends, with horrific results. Explaining violence helps us understand it, and understand how to stop it, instead of making it some mystical shibboleth involving some ontological evil in humanity. Downs Syndrome bombers is just the latest desperate installment in the rational goal to ramp up violence in Iraq, which many parties have seen in their interests. The Vietnam War continues to be explained, by supporters and detractors, in rational terms. What do we gain by dubbing it irrational and unexplainable?

I'd go with this, pretty much. Vimothy, you seem almost to be taking a Zizekian position, in that some kinds of violence are inherently 'irrational' and that it's somehow unacceptable even to talk about the reasons behind them, as if this risks legitimising it by trying to 'understand' it.

Gavin's right, the Holocaust didn't happen because a large proportion of the population of Germany went simultaneously and spontaneously mad or suffered demonic possession; it, like everything else that's ever happened, had a historical context, which means there were reasons for it. Reasons are not the same thing as excuses or justifications: they make don't make things right, they make them explicable, which is a good place to start if you want to do something about them.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Care to posit something else so an actual discussion can take place?

power, status, security, ideas (political or religous)?

economic incentives are undoubtedly another cause. but wouldn't you agree that we should steer clear of economic reductionism - i.e the only (or even primary) source of human motivation for action - as this would be IMHO an ahistoric portrayal.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Are you deliberately missing my point? I don't doubt that the global political economy is comprised of often highly assymetric power relations and self-serving agendas. But the use of the term neo-liberal as a perjorative without any attempt on your behalf to validate any of your claims, highlight causal linkages, or demonstate even the most basic understanding of neo-liberal economic philosophy is tedious.

But fuck it, lets all just be vague and avoid any worthwhile discussion about such matters.

Sorry Gavin that was unwarranted and not constructive. I just get a little irritated by the use of "neo-liberal" as some sort of catch all expression for labelling all the ills in the world. Inequality, poverty, loss of community, destruction of local values, destruction of the environment etc etc -- blame the "neo-liberals" whoever and wherever 'they' may be. :slanted:

 

[vimothy]

Rationality and Murder

Rationality should not only be thought of in terms of a function operating effectively within a larger, content-less and machine-like system. Relative to his own values and strategy, a suicide bomber might be thought of as being eminently rational, if we make, say, a positive appraisal of that suicide bomber’s efficient use of inputs or resources to gain a specific outcome or range of outcomes.

However, rationality also implies a moral judgement. This is why I referred to “moral relativism”. If you think that a Baghdad suicide-bomb mass murder is rational because it occurred for a reason – such as a strategic assessment on the part of that suicide bomber or her or his cell commander – you accept the proximate causes as rational and thus have already accepted the ultimate causes as rational. Yes, if you’re an idealistic or hate filled radical, if you are power hungry or excited by the thought of the God-like power of murder, if you dream of stamping out the Shia / Persian / Pagan / American / Zionist / etc state by provoking civil war, then of course mass murder of innocent civilians is a rational way to achieve your goals.

In that sense, this is a semantic argument. We aren’t talking about the same thing. I realise that acts of terror are committed for a reason, with a goal in mind and against the backdrop of a perceived set of events, situations or injustices. But how rational actually is that reason or set of reasons? Take the best possible slant you can give the story mentioned upthread: You watch the American invasion of Iraq and are so enraged that they have toppled an Arab regime that you travel to the country and join the insurgency. After a while or straight a way, you hit upon the clever idea of strapping suicide vests to two women with Down Syndrome (no one will look too closely at mentally ill women) and using them to slaughter large numbers of Shia at local pet markets (pet markets are bad, by the way).

If you think that murdering 91 Iraqis because you are annoyed at the invasion of Iraq using mentally ill women as remote controlled bombs is rational… (And I admit that this is a subjective judgement) I think perhaps there is an element of irrationality there too. That’s not to try to draw a moral equivalence between you and the terrorists, but rather that you both are somehow morally confused. Murdering 91 unconnected people because Saddam was toppled by America (or whatever transient thought flashes across your mind when you make the decision to set off a bomb at a crowded marketplace) is not rational. It is insane.

 

[vimothy]

Gavin's right, the Holocaust didn't happen because a large proportion of the population of Germany went simultaneously and spontaneously mad or suffered demonic possession; it, like everything else that's ever happened, had a historical context, which means there were reasons for it. Reasons are not the same thing as excuses or justifications: they make don't make things right, they make them explicable, which is a good place to start if you want to do something about them.

Mr Tea -- you and Gavin are putting forward tautological arguments. Everything happens for a reason. The Holocaust happened for a reason. If I went outside and shot a passing stranger in the face, there would be a reason for that. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, it happened for a reason. If you think that stated or implied reason is indeed reasonable and justifies the action, then you think the action is rational. When I say "walking outside and shooting a passing stranger in the face is rational," it means that it makes sense, that it's a reasonable response givfen the circumstances. When you say, "Stalin's political oppression was rational", it means that you think Stalin's paranoid state murders were a reasonable response to a given situation, rather than acts of inhuman and pointless cruelty.

 

[vimothy]

I'd go with this, pretty much. Vimothy, you seem almost to be taking a Zizekian position, in that some kinds of violence are inherently 'irrational' and that it's somehow unacceptable even to talk about the reasons behind them, as if this risks legitimising it by trying to 'understand' it.

Also, this is not true. I'm not saying that horrible events don't happen for a reason (of course they do), or that you should deliberately avoid trying to understand them or explain them, but that some acts of violence are irrational in that the reasons behind them are spurious or transient: ethnic cleansing is only rational if you think murdeing lots of your ethnic rivals is a reasonable response to having to see their scabby faces everywhere.

EDIT: Having a reason for acting does not mean that any given action is a justified, reasonable or rational response to that reason.

 

[Slothrop]

Yes, in the sense we're using above, blowing yourself up because it's what your religion tells you is good and you think that you'll be rewarded in paradise as a result is a fairly rational (even reasonable) decision.

The question that the OP meant, I think is whether it's a decision based on social/economic/political circumstances, one based on religion or somewhere between the two. Or whether this is in some sense a false dichotomy.