If you want war, work for justice(daviddfriedman.blogspot.com)
daviddfriedman.blogspot.com
If you want war, work for justice
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-you-want-war-work-for-justice.html
33 comments
Well spotted. Linking this to small identity is a part of an extremely important consciousness-raising that I hope is happening. Hopefully this will curb what you are describing about the anti-Bush movement.
I was recently talking about something similar relating to framing the international development arm of an NGO in the context of 'social justice.' That piece of semantic propaganda can cause a lot of trouble later on. The understanding of 'justice' that we nurture in our normal, functional societies is one that relies on one party having absolute power: A just ruler.
A Judge (or the legal system) has all the power. The defendant, only those powers given to him in the name of justice. In the context of this kind of society, unwavering commitment to 'justice' is extremely useful. People fall into line. It is harder to game the system by increasing barriers to justice. This all oils essential machinery like contracts, security & a fixed set of rules.
It is harmful taking this to a different context.
Once you leave that context, justice doesn't work so well. If you need the recipient of the sharper end of justice to agree to it, that's a problem. Who expected Omar Al-Bashir to show up voluntarily for his arrest? The reasoning was that asserting the International Court's in this context authority would be a step towards subjecting criminal rulers to the same justice as criminal citizens. But the power balance is all wrong.
Like the article rightly points out, making claims of ustice is no good if you are appealing to the party directly, via negotiations.
so why is everything framed as justice?
Partly it's habit. There are parallels between stealing cattle from a farm & stealing from the national treasury. But also, the proponents of 'justice' are often appealing to 'the public' as the judge. For example, the Israelis & Palestinians appeal to 'world opinion.' While perhaps strengthening their hands individually, that kind of appeal hurts their joint ability to negotiate with each other. IE, it gets them better terms in a less likely agreement.
I was recently talking about something similar relating to framing the international development arm of an NGO in the context of 'social justice.' That piece of semantic propaganda can cause a lot of trouble later on. The understanding of 'justice' that we nurture in our normal, functional societies is one that relies on one party having absolute power: A just ruler.
A Judge (or the legal system) has all the power. The defendant, only those powers given to him in the name of justice. In the context of this kind of society, unwavering commitment to 'justice' is extremely useful. People fall into line. It is harder to game the system by increasing barriers to justice. This all oils essential machinery like contracts, security & a fixed set of rules.
It is harmful taking this to a different context.
Once you leave that context, justice doesn't work so well. If you need the recipient of the sharper end of justice to agree to it, that's a problem. Who expected Omar Al-Bashir to show up voluntarily for his arrest? The reasoning was that asserting the International Court's in this context authority would be a step towards subjecting criminal rulers to the same justice as criminal citizens. But the power balance is all wrong.
Like the article rightly points out, making claims of ustice is no good if you are appealing to the party directly, via negotiations.
so why is everything framed as justice?
Partly it's habit. There are parallels between stealing cattle from a farm & stealing from the national treasury. But also, the proponents of 'justice' are often appealing to 'the public' as the judge. For example, the Israelis & Palestinians appeal to 'world opinion.' While perhaps strengthening their hands individually, that kind of appeal hurts their joint ability to negotiate with each other. IE, it gets them better terms in a less likely agreement.
> If someone assumes having the wrong opinions is evil, then the discussion is likely to be uninteresting and achieve nothing more than hurt feelings.
One approach is to start with "Let's assume that I'm evil and you're good and discuss only what is correct/leads to better results." That makes many of the rhetorical games worthless.
And, if you play your cards right, you get to conclude with "Hmm, I'm the evil one but your approach ends up with {horror} while mine leads to {smiling bunnies}."
One approach is to start with "Let's assume that I'm evil and you're good and discuss only what is correct/leads to better results." That makes many of the rhetorical games worthless.
And, if you play your cards right, you get to conclude with "Hmm, I'm the evil one but your approach ends up with {horror} while mine leads to {smiling bunnies}."
While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the anti-Bush movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon is especially noticeable among my generation.
While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the pro-Bush movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon is especially noticeable among my generation.
While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the pro-Bush movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon is especially noticeable among my generation.
Both sides handled it poorly, but what I primarily saw was the pro-Bush side dismissing their opponents as just "idiots" or "well intentioned idiots", not "evil idiots". Which, is obviously not good for a healthy debate, but an idiot is totally different from an evil-idiot.
"Democrats are the party of hate. Republicans are the party of fear" - Penn Gillette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG6JYsm1GmM
"Democrats are the party of hate. Republicans are the party of fear" - Penn Gillette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG6JYsm1GmM
The pro-Bush side encompasses a wide variety of people on the right and I'd swear that some of them thought the left were evil and were shovelling bucketfuls of hate as well. Maybe if you just listened to some of the more civil pundits on the right like David Brooks, William F. Buckley Jr. or George Will then you got a different view.
Compromise is how you lose.
Group A believes that they should have a right to free speech. Group B believes frees speech is alright except in certain circumstances. Group A compromises with Group B. Who won? Group A has less of what they already had and Group B has more of what they wanted. Now that Group B has won what about Group C, D, E, and F? I'm sure they will all want to compromise with Group A too.
Group A believes that they should have a right to free speech. Group B believes frees speech is alright except in certain circumstances. Group A compromises with Group B. Who won? Group A has less of what they already had and Group B has more of what they wanted. Now that Group B has won what about Group C, D, E, and F? I'm sure they will all want to compromise with Group A too.
Compromise is how you lose.
It probably depends on what you are comprising about, and how much scope for a freely negotiated deal there is in that subject matter. In general, negotiation rather than compulsion makes both parties to the negotiation winners.
I'm pretty much a strong advocate of freedom of speech, having lived in countries without it, but just for mental exercise I'll try disagreeing with the example you give, which I agree is well chosen to force agreement with your much more general point.
What if Group A says, "We should have a right to free speech to impugn your mother's moral character," and Group B says, "We like free speech in general, but we think defamation should still bear legal penalties." Is your example as strong if it is that concrete?
It probably depends on what you are comprising about, and how much scope for a freely negotiated deal there is in that subject matter. In general, negotiation rather than compulsion makes both parties to the negotiation winners.
I'm pretty much a strong advocate of freedom of speech, having lived in countries without it, but just for mental exercise I'll try disagreeing with the example you give, which I agree is well chosen to force agreement with your much more general point.
What if Group A says, "We should have a right to free speech to impugn your mother's moral character," and Group B says, "We like free speech in general, but we think defamation should still bear legal penalties." Is your example as strong if it is that concrete?
That's exactly what this article is pointing to.
The difficulty caused by introducing 'principles' like justice. Free speech is such a principle.
Principals are compromised by compromise. Preferences are not. Therefore if you think in terms or the right to freedom of speech, compromise is how you lose. If dislike restrictions on your freedom to say what you want, negotiation is how you win.
The difficulty caused by introducing 'principles' like justice. Free speech is such a principle.
Principals are compromised by compromise. Preferences are not. Therefore if you think in terms or the right to freedom of speech, compromise is how you lose. If dislike restrictions on your freedom to say what you want, negotiation is how you win.
Time ago I was told some wise words: "don't try to please those who don't want to be pleased". When you maintain an open mind talking to people that doesn't, on the long run you end up giving up all you believe in, while the others don't move an inch.
A negotiation works better considering interests instead of justice, but it has to be for both parts. If you see it as interests and the other part sees it as principles, you lose always. I have seen this in some processes that have lasted twenty years..
You can't negotiate with religious organization for this very reason: they see everything as a matter of justice, so while the title is right, the example is hopelessly wrong.
A negotiation works better considering interests instead of justice, but it has to be for both parts. If you see it as interests and the other part sees it as principles, you lose always. I have seen this in some processes that have lasted twenty years..
You can't negotiate with religious organization for this very reason: they see everything as a matter of justice, so while the title is right, the example is hopelessly wrong.
I find this post pretty interesting for a couple reasons.
First, doing a quick wikipedia search tells me that he is a law professor at Santa Clara University (where I went to undergrad) which is a Roman Catholic Jesuit institution. He is an atheist.
Second, he's basically arguing that the common slogan that people working for social justice often say "if you want peace, work for justice" is rather..hmm..presumptuous?
I haven't read any of his books, but it seems like such a radical position. I wonder where he gets his beliefs, because certainly the institution that he works at is exemplary in promoting compromise...especially when it comes to religious thought.
First, doing a quick wikipedia search tells me that he is a law professor at Santa Clara University (where I went to undergrad) which is a Roman Catholic Jesuit institution. He is an atheist.
Second, he's basically arguing that the common slogan that people working for social justice often say "if you want peace, work for justice" is rather..hmm..presumptuous?
I haven't read any of his books, but it seems like such a radical position. I wonder where he gets his beliefs, because certainly the institution that he works at is exemplary in promoting compromise...especially when it comes to religious thought.
It doesn't seem very radical at all. It seems like the slogan he's attacking is thoughtlessly radical, since it amounts to saying "Be an absolutist; if you can't find common ground, your opposition must be neutralized or destroyed." Is it really radical to say that this is not a healthy view?
[deleted]
I think the blog makes an interesting point, though the author seems to frame justice differently than I might; as "the thing that benefits <my group>", whereas I think Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) would frame justice as fairness that does not infringe upon one's basic rights (given a social contract etc. etc.). Given that perspective, it's difficult to argue either side of something that is based on a different conception of justice.
But...escalation to war over this definition of justice seems like a failing of rational thought and possibly intentional blindness to another's perspective -- so theories of justice and social contracts which assume rational and reasonable humans don't really come into play, do they?
But...escalation to war over this definition of justice seems like a failing of rational thought and possibly intentional blindness to another's perspective -- so theories of justice and social contracts which assume rational and reasonable humans don't really come into play, do they?
Working for justice can also involve accepting compromises along the way to one's goal.
But you're still taking the view that your goal will be achieved eventually, unaltered, right? And if your opponent knows that your goal is unchanged, and his does not change either, compromise is worthless: you're both bargaining from a position of bad faith that assumes you will eventually win.
Friedman quotes the mild, pleading, bumper-sticker form of the attitude he is criticizing: "If you want peace, work for justice".
There's also the group-chant version: "No justice, no peace". In that form, it's almost a threat: agree with us or we'll riot.
There's also the group-chant version: "No justice, no peace". In that form, it's almost a threat: agree with us or we'll riot.
This is potentially specious.
My reading of "No justice, no peace" is not "If there is no justice, then will not allow peace", but rather "Without justice, peace is not possible"
This is the far more sensible reading imo. A free, peaceful societies must rely upon universal, and equal enforcement of law in order to encourage and protect peaceful behavior.
That's not to say that there aren't other ways to attain a "peaceful" society. Totalitarian regimes may have little to fear from their citizens, but only through the extermination of dissent and corruption. But, that's where the "free" part is important.
My reading of "No justice, no peace" is not "If there is no justice, then will not allow peace", but rather "Without justice, peace is not possible"
This is the far more sensible reading imo. A free, peaceful societies must rely upon universal, and equal enforcement of law in order to encourage and protect peaceful behavior.
That's not to say that there aren't other ways to attain a "peaceful" society. Totalitarian regimes may have little to fear from their citizens, but only through the extermination of dissent and corruption. But, that's where the "free" part is important.
I'm not talking about a 'reading' of "no justice, no peace" in written, analytical form.
I'm talking about it chanted by a large group on the move with a grievance. Context, volume, and tone matter.
The chant is occasionally extended to "no justice, no peace, fuck the police" [1] and the phrase is celebrated even without that extension for its association with "fighting back" [2]. The phrase is also used euphemistically to predict riots are due [3].
In the protest-chant context, everyone knows it has two meanings -- both the cryptic threat, and the more cerebral koan -- at the same time. Indeed, that's part of its charm -- people who aren't quite ready to throw rocks and break things can chant emphatically along with those who are ready, and get a little vicarious thrill that some serious shit might go down... "even though we didn't really mean things to get out of hand".
[1] Many examples via http://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+justice+no+peace+fuck%2... and a nice graffiti example http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/08/steven-wallace-coroners-...
[2] as in this poster http://www.flickr.com/photos/seven_resist/3115883713/
[3] as in this blog entry, http://www.danteross.com/blogs/dante/2009/01/08/oscar-grantt... , where "...like I predicted it’s gonna get hot in the Bay….No Justice No Peace" is used to introduce a news clipping titled "Rioting in Oakland"
I'm talking about it chanted by a large group on the move with a grievance. Context, volume, and tone matter.
The chant is occasionally extended to "no justice, no peace, fuck the police" [1] and the phrase is celebrated even without that extension for its association with "fighting back" [2]. The phrase is also used euphemistically to predict riots are due [3].
In the protest-chant context, everyone knows it has two meanings -- both the cryptic threat, and the more cerebral koan -- at the same time. Indeed, that's part of its charm -- people who aren't quite ready to throw rocks and break things can chant emphatically along with those who are ready, and get a little vicarious thrill that some serious shit might go down... "even though we didn't really mean things to get out of hand".
[1] Many examples via http://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+justice+no+peace+fuck%2... and a nice graffiti example http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/08/steven-wallace-coroners-...
[2] as in this poster http://www.flickr.com/photos/seven_resist/3115883713/
[3] as in this blog entry, http://www.danteross.com/blogs/dante/2009/01/08/oscar-grantt... , where "...like I predicted it’s gonna get hot in the Bay….No Justice No Peace" is used to introduce a news clipping titled "Rioting in Oakland"
Interesting choice. Quoting the milder form opens a seperate discussion.
Is this guy serious? he is confusing justice for stubbornness.
I think he is saying that people tend to be more stubborn when a discussion involves justice than when it involves conflicting personal interests.
I'm kind of ignorant about this subject. Are most wars started by moral disagreements?
People who start wars may claim that they are starting wars because of principle when they are really starting them because of expediency.
The author of the submitted blog post is an economist, and as his example points out, if people are FRANK that what they are arguing about is personal expediency, they can usually be persuaded to make reasonable trade-offs that reach a mutual, peaceful agreement. But if people think "justice" (who defines that?) must always be defended to the utmost, they are unlikely to reach agreement with other people who have different ideas of what justice is.
A readily apparent example: is there some basis in "justice" to say which national government should control the territory of east Jerusalem?
The author of the submitted blog post is an economist, and as his example points out, if people are FRANK that what they are arguing about is personal expediency, they can usually be persuaded to make reasonable trade-offs that reach a mutual, peaceful agreement. But if people think "justice" (who defines that?) must always be defended to the utmost, they are unlikely to reach agreement with other people who have different ideas of what justice is.
A readily apparent example: is there some basis in "justice" to say which national government should control the territory of east Jerusalem?
> People who start wars may claim that they are starting wars because of principle when they are really starting them because of expediency.
This makes it very hard to evaluate whether "if you want war, work for justice" is a true statement. (The counterargument runs something like "appeasement never works, etc. etc." Of course, the proponents of this position find lots of examples where appeasement fails, but that's obviously only half the story.)
This makes it very hard to evaluate whether "if you want war, work for justice" is a true statement. (The counterargument runs something like "appeasement never works, etc. etc." Of course, the proponents of this position find lots of examples where appeasement fails, but that's obviously only half the story.)
Yes and no. Yes insofar as a majority of the Western (United States and EU to a lesser degree) military actions post-Cold War have been for humanitarian reasons; Kosovo, Somalia, original Iraq war, etc. We (the West) sent troops into the situation not because our national interests were threatened, but because some brutal dictator / warlord / whatever was committing genocide / murdering all his people / etc. And we (again, the West) thought this was wrong. So there is a moral component here.
However, these military actions represent a small fraction of the wars going on around the world, most of which are internal civil conflict; Chad, Nigeria, ethnic conflict and insurgency in India, etc. Not really much of a moral component in these conflicts.
However, these military actions represent a small fraction of the wars going on around the world, most of which are internal civil conflict; Chad, Nigeria, ethnic conflict and insurgency in India, etc. Not really much of a moral component in these conflicts.
I imagine that wars in a general sense are more driven by larger socio-economic forces than by any kind of sustained moral disagreement.
Sure anyone can call anything they want "just". But for the most part they're wrong. I'm not going to dance around saying that a moral is what you want it to be. Moral relativism is for the spineless.
There are certain fundamental truths. Sure, there might be some shades of gray, but white and black exist in the world. The lens through which true justice be viewed is: how does taking one action over another effect the advancement of the human condition. Therefore, as evidenced by history, justice sits on the side of freedom.
There are certain fundamental truths. Sure, there might be some shades of gray, but white and black exist in the world. The lens through which true justice be viewed is: how does taking one action over another effect the advancement of the human condition. Therefore, as evidenced by history, justice sits on the side of freedom.
Sure: black and white exist in the world, and there are fundamental truths. There is justice in the world. But there exist people who will disagree with your view of justice, and the question is how you will interact with them. If compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?
In general I've found that zeal for justice correlates with the tendency to disregard the possibility that one's own argument is wrong. That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.
In general I've found that zeal for justice correlates with the tendency to disregard the possibility that one's own argument is wrong. That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.
> If compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?
Not necessarily. Ideally, these people should be ignored. It isn't until they are actively standing in the way of freedom that real conflict should occur.
> That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.
Like I said, there is plenty of gray in the world (like how to best promote freedom). But I and every person who values freedom should be prepared for conflict. And I'm ok with not having any other options other than conflict if it means freedom.
Not necessarily. Ideally, these people should be ignored. It isn't until they are actively standing in the way of freedom that real conflict should occur.
> That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.
Like I said, there is plenty of gray in the world (like how to best promote freedom). But I and every person who values freedom should be prepared for conflict. And I'm ok with not having any other options other than conflict if it means freedom.
> Moral relativism is for the spineless.
I'd say there are plenty of things where you and I will differ about the morality. You may call those grey areas, but I'd say there's a whole lot more grey than there is black and white.
I'd say there are plenty of things where you and I will differ about the morality. You may call those grey areas, but I'd say there's a whole lot more grey than there is black and white.
Silly.
Muslims must review, refine and rewrite QURAN now.
* Christians have corrected BIBLE on Slavery.
* Hindus have corrected VEDAS on Untouchability.
Once having the right opinions becomes a matter of justice, then you might as well end the discussion right there.
While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the anti-Bush movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon is especially noticeable among my generation.
This relates to Paul Graham's "Small Identity" post. Having a small identity probably correlates with having a smaller domain where one invokes passionate moral outrage.