Justice, whatever it is, is unlikely to be found in the justice system of your country. Justice is absolute, isn’t it? There is only one way to give someone the right share of what he deserves and all other measures of distribution will necessarily miss the target. All we can hope for is an approximation.
We should even be skeptical about the system’s ability to reach somewhere close to the ideal. Society, as it is, is an accident of history and therefore it could have been different. Out of the infinite number of possible worlds and possible human societies, it is completely unlikely that the time and place where you happened to be born is the best of all. Even if we limit the range of what could be to the around two hundred state formation of the world today, it is not so probable that your country is the one that has found the best way of distributing justice.
Therefore, when trying to determine what is just in absolute terms we will have to look well beyond the current state of affairs. Laws and courts are rather irrelevant for deciding what is good and just and whether or not something is termed legal or illegal is not a trustworthy measure of morality. Ultimately only you and your conscience can make a decision about right and wrong.
The conservatives used to be afraid of democracy. When the revolutionaries of 1848 demanded democracy in Europe, the conservative establishment was terrified by the prospect of the plebs tearing down the age-old order. Now, more than a century and a half later, their fears have since long been proven wrong. The common people are not revolutionaries, they are also afraid of change, and democratic measures have actually been an ally of conservative resistance.
There have been exceptions to this, of course. Radical parties of both left and right have sometimes threatened the established order at the polls, but they have either not been able to uphold their following through consecutive elections or they have fairly soon lost their deviant nature and become a sober part of the establishment.
The conservative have won and the greatest victory occurred after 1989. Now no left wing party in Europe is seriously able to threaten the mainstream. The old left is gone and the post-1989 conservatives are enjoying the wonders of democracy in a way their ancestors of 1848 could never have imagined.
But there are disturbances in the cozy world of conservatism. The nuisance is less systematic than it used to be and less ideological. It is known as populism and covers a chaotic range of movements that simply want change without exactly knowing what this change should consist in. The conservatives obviously see this as a threat, but now they call it a threat to democracy. The world has come full circle…
The freedom of speech is restricted in the Netherlands, the country of freedom. Geert Wilders is convicted of discrimination for saying that his country would be safer with fewer Moroccans. I don’t agree with Wilders and I think his xenophobic views are unhealthy for the Dutch society, but if freedom of speech means anything, he should be allowed to express his distasteful opinions.
Once you start excluding certain opinions because they are not good for society, there is no longer a limit to what speech can be outlawed and the fundamental difference between a totalitarian and a liberal state disappears. (There is still a difference of course, but it becomes one of degree, not of essence.)
Admittedly the issue is complicated by the fact that certain forms of expression are not and should not be protected by the freedom of speech. Personal insults and meaningless noise should not necessarily be allowed, but that is not essential to this freedom anyway. What it is meant to protect is the right to have any socially relevant opinion.
Wilders utterance about Moroccans (which I by chance happen to find disturbing) clearly expresses an opinion about the state of his society, and it is exactly that kind of speech that the freedom of speech is meant to protect. Opinions that are in harmony with the general view of the government of a country don’t need protection, any totalitarian state allows that, but when an opinion goes against the established authorities it should be shielded from prosecution.
”Populism” is a loaded word and it is a rather strange one. It is used to express disapproval of certain forms of political activity, but unlike other such negative terms its basic reference would seem quite positive. It is of course derived from “populus” > “people” and initially one would probably think that there can be nothing wrong about seeking the support of the people. After all, that is the essential idea of democracy which also the anti-populists subscribe to.
Elections are all about trying to seduce the public into supporting one’s own party and candidate and mainstream contenders are certainly in on this game. No one restricts themselves to feeding the voters with serious arguments only. The manipulating game of simple slogans, winning looks, mudslinging and balloons is an integrated part of the most normal election campaign, and one might be excused to think that that itself is populism.
To say and do whatever is popular in order to gain votes is certainly not a characteristic that is only reserved for those who are labeled populists. Could it be that the so-called populists are simply better at that game they are all engaging in? It is a little hypocritical to denounce populism when the whole system is involved in similar activities.
The critics do have a point, though. Vulgar demagoguery, lies, simplified worldviews and self-centeredness are certainly evils that haunt the contemporary political debate. But although the so-called populists are the worst offenders, it is prevalent throughout and is even encouraged by the system.
The lesson learned at the Nuremberg rials was supposedly that obeying order doesn’t free a person from guilt. That is certainly morally true. One can commit many terrible acts by obeying the authorities of a country like Nazi-Germany. But legally one is only guilty when breaking the law. The authorities of a country make the laws and whoever obeys them cannot be guilty of a crime.
The two concepts, morally guilty and legally guilty, should be strictly held apart, but unfortunately the lesson from Nuremberg was to confuse the two.
It doesn’t make sense to convict anyone for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time and place when the incident occurred. Suppose your country was taken over by another power. It would then be very unfair if you were condemned according to new laws for something you did that was legal before the occupation. Yet that could happen according to the principle of Nuremberg.
The accused at Nuremberg had committed horrendous acts and deserve our unison moral condemnation, but the trials considered as legal events were a sham since they were tried according to laws introduced by the new occupiers.
Isn’t a moral condemnation enough? Why do we insist on courts, verdicts and punishment when the culprit is no longer a threat to society anyway?
Even last year, seventy years after the war, a decrepit man in his nineties was on trial in Germany for having been a guard at Auschwitz. For what purpose? Why not leave him to the judgment of his own conscience?
The long shadow of Nuremberg is the spirit of revenge and the arrogance of those who happened to land on the right side of history.
Smoking is forbidden, prohibited, outlawed and banned from all public space in Europe and America. Maybe it is reasonable, but there is something strikingly odd about this particular piece of legislation compared to the rest of the legal system in the Western world.
True, there are also restrictions on other unhealthy activities. Drugs are illegal and you are not allowed to play with fire or parachute from tall buildings. But these are pursuits that are not accepted by the general society anyway. “Normal” activities, on the other hand, should not be banned, most people think. The common attitude is that you should be allowed to do it if you choose it freely and are aware of the risks. But no one is forced to enter a restaurant where there is smoking.
What is astonishing about the ban on smoking that started to take effect throughout Europe about ten years ago is how quickly it was accepted. The common cry whenever a restriction on an unhealthy activity is suggested is that “I am a grown-up person and no one is to tell me what to do.” But this was not heard. Imagine trying to ban alcohol, chocolate or certain kinds of trash entertainment.
The ban on smoking would have been equally unthinkable in an earlier period. At a time when movie heroes were smokers, a government that had tried to implement anti-smoking laws would have been universally condemned as totalitarian and fascist. But then a mighty trend swept through the West and the unacceptable became acceptable. It was not so much a change of conviction through arguments, but rather a matter of bowing to the inevitable.
Strange, isn’t it? There exists a social force that is stronger than the will of both governments and peoples. It is as if it moves through the currents of the air, it can’t be grasped and it’s hard to see through it. It’s like smoke.
Modern life is a game of manipulation. From everywhere signals are sent out aimed at influencing our behavior.
The art of advertising is the study of how to reach into the human subconsciousness and make people act contrary to their original intention. It is a respected science, taught in schools and encouraged as an occupation that is an integrated and necessary part of the social organism.
But how can it be necessary? It is contrary to the idea of the free agent which is also celebrated as an achievement of the Western world.
There is no state propaganda in the free world, we are told, only honest advertising that is paid for by private competitors who are making free use of their own money. But why think that this kind of propaganda is harmless?
Maybe it’s not so scary that they lure us into buying a brand of toothpaste that we otherwise would have avoided, but far more important life choices are also at stake. Every single instant of manipulation is a part of an overall trend that advocates a certain life style and we don’t have sufficient imagination to think that it is possible to live in another way. We are not really manipulated into choosing, but rather manipulated into thinking that we have no choice. When being overwhelmed from one side, all alternatives disappear from our view.
At least there is no conspiracy at work, for the manipulators are themselves manipulated.
They voted for change, but what did they vote for? Any change? Any spectacular outburst of colors, noise and surprise? They voted for some single individual with a considerable entertainment value but without any clear and substantial totality.
Normally a presidential candidate is more than just a person. He has a party behind him or at least he has a recognizable ideology that makes him predictable. This newly elected whoever he is, is just a private person. He has a range of scattered views on various issues and the only thing that holds them together is his own faulty personality.
So what did they vote for? If democracy is to have a meaning, there should be a reasonably close connection between what the people think they choose and what they actually get. The nature of a Trump presidency is completely unknown. The experts are desperately trying to piece together some sort of prediction, but it is little more than guessing. No one knows anything, except perhaps the main character himself. The people have chosen the unknown.
But how can you choose an unknown? It’s the same as not choosing at all. You say: Whatever is inside that sparkling funny box, I’ll take it. You prefer to be surprised rather than choosing for yourself. That could certainly be an amusing little game if it wasn’t so serious.
Now anything may happen. The American people didn’t choose; they rolled the dice.
It’s a good thing there are copyright laws. Taking someone’s work of art and presenting it as your own is a despicable act. That is the moral side of it. But the other side is only about money, and from that perspective ethics is just a useful excuse for making profit.
In principle there is nothing wrong about copying something and selling it. Everything is more or less a copy anyway. For purely practical reason, though, it may be a good idea to protect certain products, otherwise the incentive to produce may be reduced and that may damage the social economy. But that is purely a business measure and there is nothing moral about it. Therefore it cannot be unethical to ignore such regulations, and for the individual consumer they are rather irrelevant.
By all means, buy copied products if they are cheap and safe! Don’t listen to producers who try to make you buy their goods by appealing to your moral feelings. It is rather suspicious when someone cares about morality only when it happens to be profitable, isn’t it?
They call it protection of intellectual property, but there is nothing intellectual or nothing artistic about a silly brand name or a piece of fashion clothing. Copyright laws are good for protecting the integrity of works of art; they should not be just another tool for money-making.
Democracy works. Capitalism works. Absolute monarchy used to work. Chinese communism works. Whatever is, works.
The fact that a system is stable and has lasted for some time proves that it works, but other than that is says nothing about the intrinsic merits of the system.
Yet the stability of Western democracy is often used as a proof of its superiority over any other form of government. (The fact that democracy clearly doesn’t work everywhere is then conveniently disregarded.)
In the Western world today, democracy is probably the best conceivable system simply because it has found a way to respond to a recurring problem of human history: How to accept a government. But other systems have also been able to solve that problem for a while. Absolute monarchy constituted progress compared to its predecessor because it simplified the power structure and limited the danger of rebellion and revolution. It worked, and so it did until it stopped working.
If you want to praise democracy, it doesn’t really amount to much to say that it works. At this particular time and place, democracy (or this specific form of democracy) exists and therefore it may actually be the only thing that could work in these circumstances. If you tried to change the system, it would mean its failure and any other system would not function immediately. So it seems that what you have is the best.
In that case this is all that remains of the glory of democracy: A prosaic and conservative acknowledgment of its functionality.
A Bear - Poles Apart 