Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made it clear that the number of nuclear reactors in the World is likely to increase in the nearest future.
This statement is valuable for two reasons:
1. IAEA's head is probably the most informed person in the World in regard to the developments involving the nuclear energy.
2. He is neither a political leader, nor representative of the nuclear industry, nor environmentalist, and as such can afford to be more objective than anyone else. This is even more underscored by the fact that Mr. Amano is Japanese, who probably finds it hard to be dispassionate about teh recent Fukushima accident.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Conditional morality
We now know more about the Oslo massacre - even though the murderer was a crazy man acting alone, there are many legitimate questions to ask about those who encourage the right-wing extremism and about the availability of guns. Both these factors contributed to the possibility of this tragedy.
Yet, there is one more factor that is not likely to be discussed much, even though it should be. Especially in the light of the revelations that the gunman himself described his actions as "gruesome but necessary".
Indeed, modern society accepts murder... if the murder is "justified". This is true as in popular culture, as well as in politics. All of us have seen many movies where a lone hero massacres scores of people out of revenge or simply because they are deemed "bad guys". While the hero's arch-enemy in these movies is usually a murderer himself (which still hardly justifies the extra-judicial justice), on the way to this arch-enemy the hero massacres dozens of nameless guards, soldiers, policemen, storm-troopers etc. (Storm troopers are particularly faceless, and therefore their murder is particularly easy.)
In our political life we accept murder, if the murdered people are terrorists, mercenaries, soldiers serving dictator etc., even though sometimes these people have no choice not to be on the side of our enemies (particularly soldiers). We also accept murder, if it is committed by rebels, freedom fighters or if it is done in the name of "resistance" (which are all just euphemisms for terrorism.) Many young people admire Che Guevara, even though he was nothing but a "professional revolutionary" - a person who committed murders for the sake of his political ideals.
But when we justify murder in the name of what seems "right" to us, we have to face the fact that someone will eventually commit the murder in the name of what seems "right" to him/her. And the Norwegian murderer's statement that his actions were "gruesome but necessary" means precisely that - he thinks that he is "right". Like many of our contemporaries he forgot that what makes the murder a crime is not the fact that it is illegal and punished by law, but the fact that it is morally wrong - always wrong!
Murder is always wrong! And when Norwegian government minister met with Hamas leader, despite Hamas's refusal to accept the international demand for renouncing violence, or when it supported a statehood bid by the Palestinian authority that is now allied with Hamas - the Norwegian government sent a wrong message: The murder is acceptable, if the murderer believes that his goal is noble.
Yet, there is one more factor that is not likely to be discussed much, even though it should be. Especially in the light of the revelations that the gunman himself described his actions as "gruesome but necessary".
Indeed, modern society accepts murder... if the murder is "justified". This is true as in popular culture, as well as in politics. All of us have seen many movies where a lone hero massacres scores of people out of revenge or simply because they are deemed "bad guys". While the hero's arch-enemy in these movies is usually a murderer himself (which still hardly justifies the extra-judicial justice), on the way to this arch-enemy the hero massacres dozens of nameless guards, soldiers, policemen, storm-troopers etc. (Storm troopers are particularly faceless, and therefore their murder is particularly easy.)
In our political life we accept murder, if the murdered people are terrorists, mercenaries, soldiers serving dictator etc., even though sometimes these people have no choice not to be on the side of our enemies (particularly soldiers). We also accept murder, if it is committed by rebels, freedom fighters or if it is done in the name of "resistance" (which are all just euphemisms for terrorism.) Many young people admire Che Guevara, even though he was nothing but a "professional revolutionary" - a person who committed murders for the sake of his political ideals.
But when we justify murder in the name of what seems "right" to us, we have to face the fact that someone will eventually commit the murder in the name of what seems "right" to him/her. And the Norwegian murderer's statement that his actions were "gruesome but necessary" means precisely that - he thinks that he is "right". Like many of our contemporaries he forgot that what makes the murder a crime is not the fact that it is illegal and punished by law, but the fact that it is morally wrong - always wrong!
Murder is always wrong! And when Norwegian government minister met with Hamas leader, despite Hamas's refusal to accept the international demand for renouncing violence, or when it supported a statehood bid by the Palestinian authority that is now allied with Hamas - the Norwegian government sent a wrong message: The murder is acceptable, if the murderer believes that his goal is noble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)