All of us heard, without question, about the tragic Charlie Hebdo attack that occurred on the morning of 7 January 2015. But I have a question. How many of you heard about the massacre that happened in Nigeria, beginning on 3 January, lasting for days? Boko Haram (an Islamic militant group, associated with groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS) slaughtered over 2000 people, in what has been attributed as the largest attack conducted by the militant group to date. Maybe some of you heard about it, but speaking from my own experience, it was largely overshadowed by the Charlie Hebdo attack in France, where 12 were killed. Certainly, what happened at Charlie Hebdo is worthy of report. Both are tragedies, we would all agree; but are the lives lost at Charlie Hebdo more important than the lives lost in Nigeria? I would say no, but I'd also wager that American media would disagree, based on the coverage. Did we do justice with media coverage? Did we do justice for the lives lost in Nigeria? Why is the world not mourning over these lost Nigerian souls, like the world mourned when our country was attacked in September of 2001, resulting in the loss of 2,977 American lives? These are all important questions, but today, let's focus on just one.
What is justice in these situations, and how do we carry it out? The question will be applied through the scope of Polemarchus, from Plato's work "The Republic". In case you have reached this point, and have no idea what I'm talking about because you live under a rock (hey, no worries, we've all been there)- here are some links to help you get caught up. There are tons of news articles pertaining to each, but here are three:
Charlie Hebdo, Boko Haram, Boko Haram coverage ignored by media
Polemarchus would say, "Justice is doing good to one's friends, and harm to one's enemies". The definition, while it is shallow, can be directly applied to our question. What is justice then? According to Polemarchus, justice would be to aid the countries who sustained this attack, and also the victims families. Can we all agree that so far, we're on the right track? Further, to exact justice would be to harm the perpetrators of the attacks. To harm them, we first have to declare them our enemies, something I think we can all agree on still (if you consider Islamic terror groups your friends, you may be in the wrong country). Where this gets mushy, however, is when we try to define what constitutes harm, and then how much harm is necessary for justice to be complete. Begin speculation here, as I am about to throw in my two cents. Aid to France and Nigeria are absolutely necessary. It is clearly unjust to look upon these tragedies and say, "It is under control, they don't need our sympathy, they don't need our help." We should be involved. As for retribution on the enemy? Is it not sound to say that no reaction is equivalent to allowing these actions as well as giving them a green light to continue in the future? We, the world (not just America), must combat terror. There is a discussion heating up around the world right now regarding terrorists and what rights they have; and also, what rights they have when we are extracting information that could save lives. Meanwhile, I wonder when the world will wake up, and realize that to defeat this enemy, we must destroy this enemy. The enemy certainly did not consider the rights of the Charlie Hebdo workers, nor the Nigerian men, women, and children that they slaughtered. The world has to go to war, and finish the job. Not go into Iraq, and pull out before the job is finished. Not go into Afghanistan, and pull out before the job is finished. We must combine forces, go to war against terror, and finish the job. It would not be pretty; war is not pretty. But while the left wing is discussing what rights terrorists have, innocent people around the world are being slaughtered. And so I will answer, in my own opinion, the questions which we must ask, if we follow the definition of Polemarchus.
Q: What constitutes harm against our enemies(the perpetrators of these attacks)?
A: A declaration of war.
Q: How much harm is necessary for justice to be achieved?
A: Eradication. At a glance, this may seem harsh. However, if the enemy is not eradicated, the remnants will rise, and the cycle begins all over again, resulting in acts of terrorism, oppression, and innocent lives being lost worldwide. We have literally just witnessed exactly what I am speaking of take place in Iraq over the course of the last year.
Thanks for reading. I realize this is a heavy topic, with no doubt, a variety of opinions. But these are the times we live in, and these things are happening; so let's talk about it.
While I understand where you are coming from, Cody, there are deeper problems at work here than are apparent on the surface. Yes, the best solution would be total eradication, but I believe that this is never possible. I believe that evil and good are two sides of the same coin, and must always exist with each other. While we can hope that we have totally eliminated the enemy, what is to stop a group of young men and women in some other part of the world from picking up a book that details the worldview of terrorists, and then agree with those worldviews and start their own organization? Then the whole cycle would start all over again and we would be right back where we started. As well, we have to consider the possibility of “quiet terrorists”, or those that agree with terrorist’s motives but are not willing to say so publicly. Instead, they can educate others and send those others into the world. Evil must always exist, for a time. (But that is more religion than philosophy). And while it does, good must always exist as well. If we eradicate evil, how are we to know what is good? Can good be defined without the backdrop of evil? I believe not. They must always be clashing with each other. Thus, Justice is going to have to take a different course than total eradication. I would suggest we simply combat the terror as best we can, since I believe we will never truly win. And in the event that we do, there will no doubt be something else just as evil to rear its ugly head upon the death of terrorism. However, another question I have heard repeatedly is whether or not it is still ok for America to be the “police of the world”. True, we have won two world wars, but I am not so sure we are still the most powerful militarily anymore. As for asking for help, I once again do not believe that is going to happen. The rest of the world does not seem to be inclined to help and seems perfectly content to watch and deal with their own internal problems. I fear that they will be too stubborn to help until it is too late.
ReplyDelete