As I don't have much access to world news while working here at L'Arche, a very nice friend of mine just informed me of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.
I read the whole thing, of course, and I was amazed to discover a number of striking philosophical similarities to the work Freedom Evolves by Dan Dennett...which it just so happens that I'm about to review in my next post!
For the sake of clarity, I should reveal that I almost whole-heartedly agree with what was said here, as I also agree with much of what Dennett says. I'm very happy to have this president at this time. (Please, let there be universal health care and legislation for the poor by the time I get back to the US!)
Some Choice tidbits include these following lines. Watch for similarities to the neo-Darwinian philosophy of Dennett and Richard Dawkins in that there is an appeal to moral standards, even with the acknowledgement of their risk toward moral imposition upon others.
To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who dont.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
He talks alot about "just war" and, indirectly, just war theory. Is he rationalizing American warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan? It would appear so, but Obama's not totally unapologetic about it, either. In the end, it feels like a realistic kind of goal-setting exercise: we've got to hold these standards, even if they're not the best, because they're the best we have available to us. In this speech, Obama does this mostly by making an appeal to accepted standards for human rights.
I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the worlds — are served by the denial of human aspirations.
I say, "good on him," but. However, the most interesting for me is to note how the the position of more "pure" thinking prophets, such as Gandhi and King (whom Obama sites and from whom he draws much influence), can change under the pressure of political reality. At long last, the US has a leader who takes the positions of these people seriously, but what do we do when it comes time to making policy? I think the vulnerability of even the most lofty moral attitudes is being revealed by this generation of people, both its citizens and its political leaders.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
Our president also brings up economic and environmental sustainability and, with that, covers the trifecta of sustainable moral inclination: the environmental, the social, and the economic. I knew we could count on you, Mr. President.
In all, Obama's got a good humility about things, especially considering the controversy around this. I especially like that, in the opening of the speech, he acknowledges all the folks doing "quiet" or hidden ethical work in communities and organizations around the world, even stating that those folks are probably more deserving of the award than he. But he still continues in acceptance because (you know, as much as I do) that we can't give out a Nobel Peace Prize for ever "Random Act of Kindness." (Although CNN did attempt something like that with their "Hero" award.)
Toward the end is where the real similarities to new-Darwinism and Enlightenment philosophy start to fly. On Religion, Obama acknowledges the hurts that modernity can do, but he presses, unrelentingly for universal standards.
In short, how do we preserve our moral convictions in the face of so much difference without also building up an oppressive empire? Or, perhaps better stated, how can we preserve our uniqueness in the face of the need for moral standards? The admittance in this speech is that we don't have the answers, but that we also cannot sit by and do nothing.
That's right, people. Freedom and Morality really do evolve. Philosophically, I think I'm beginning to come up with a way to reconcile the need for diversity with the need for moral action. I believe that the two really are reconcilable, if only we look at their intersection more carefully. Then again, I'm not the President of the United States of America. I'm not the one who has to crank out policy.
Our president now is truly a child of the Enlightenment era. Perhaps not a modernist, as such, but this position is rife with influence from the evolutionary perspective on human striving. And so, we get there, little by little. Again, I say, "good on him." You'll here more about that, however, in my upcoming book review.
In the meantime, while I'm away overseas, please continue to make my country better. Use your votes, vote with your forks, and vote with your wallets. Keep your faith, my fellow Americans!
Toward the end is where the real similarities to new-Darwinism and Enlightenment philosophy start to fly. On Religion, Obama acknowledges the hurts that modernity can do, but he presses, unrelentingly for universal standards.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
In short, how do we preserve our moral convictions in the face of so much difference without also building up an oppressive empire? Or, perhaps better stated, how can we preserve our uniqueness in the face of the need for moral standards? The admittance in this speech is that we don't have the answers, but that we also cannot sit by and do nothing.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
That's right, people. Freedom and Morality really do evolve. Philosophically, I think I'm beginning to come up with a way to reconcile the need for diversity with the need for moral action. I believe that the two really are reconcilable, if only we look at their intersection more carefully. Then again, I'm not the President of the United States of America. I'm not the one who has to crank out policy.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Our president now is truly a child of the Enlightenment era. Perhaps not a modernist, as such, but this position is rife with influence from the evolutionary perspective on human striving. And so, we get there, little by little. Again, I say, "good on him." You'll here more about that, however, in my upcoming book review.
In the meantime, while I'm away overseas, please continue to make my country better. Use your votes, vote with your forks, and vote with your wallets. Keep your faith, my fellow Americans!
No comments:
Post a Comment