Via een Amerikaanse site wordt ons gevraagd of we iets te melden hebben over "my tiny hypocrisy" about coming to terms with our own little moral inconsistencies ... your stories about grappling with your own small ethical contradictions.
Omdat dit ook de tijd is van de direkteur IMF en het kamermeisje, én van die dominee, tevens parlementslid uit Kansas, die vindt dat vrouwen voorzorgsmaatregelen kunnen nemen voor het geval zij wegens verkrachting zwanger raken, zodat we het niet over abortus hoeven te hebben - you see, I have a spare tire on my car (sic), én omdat dit ook zijn de tijd en tijden en een halve tijd van de daadwerkelijke verkrachting van de rechten van een heel volk, heb ik de volgende bijdrage geleverd.
presumption of hypocrisy
I will not speak of my tiny layer(s) of hypocrisy in the past. No, I will foretell that in the near future I will have to come to terms with not so little moral inconsistencies. I will also predict that the participants of this open call, be it the bloggers or their readers, will find themself grappling with not that small ethical contradictions.
Not so long ago a not so famous lady, a room maid in a hotel USA, has accused a very famous man, director of a global political institution, of having her raped. The man has denied. From the moment this was breaking news the story is troubled by the fact that we've got a lot information of secondary business and that we have no information whatsoever on the objective facts.
There are three possibilities:
- the man is guilty
- there was misunderstanding between the two about his meanings and her consent
- it was a setup to get rid of a man who was, in terms of global affairs, a pain in the ass to some other important men
The man is already convicted - he is a beast. Although this is not the hypocrisy I am speaking of, it is important to signal this fact because it has set the conditions for the outcome of the process.
I have done some homework.
First, among the media and the professional bloggers around (whatever weight the adjective "professional" may carry in these matters) I have not found a single text without a (slight) presumption of guiltiness.
Worse, some men, also famous, have written in support of the integrity of the alleged suspect. Among them Bernard-Henri Lévy. Now, that man is a beast too!
I see only two possible outcomes, because I rule out a few things to happen
- the prosecutor will rest his case
- the defendant will plead guilty
- the defendant will collapse during the trial sessions
- the jury will return from her room to tell the judge that it is not possible to say who is right
So one of the two
- the jury returns from her considerations and tell us that the defendant is not guilty
- the chairman of the jury will stand up in court and tell us the verdict: guilty
Now, as we know, our dear Emily Holleman, introducing this open call in her essay on her being vegetarian and her love for fine leather, has exposed her tiny layer of hypocrisy, to hide for us her more serious layers of hypocrisy
- the thick layer of "is it OK for a vegetarian to ride on the back of a horse"
- and what about the even thicker layer of this: the majority of people think that it is righteous to own animals for their products, and their meat (a) vegetarian people think they are entitled to their opinion that this is wrong (b) a vegetarian lecturing meat consumers, feels also entitled to deny other people the right to their own opinion (c)
Everyone may think about the case DSK as he or she likes. But it could be interesting, after the verdict is spoken, to observe the participants of this open call, when they start examining their conscience, their second thoughts about what happened, to see their mind processing - what "little" moral inconsistencies they will have to come to terms with.
As far as I am concerned, I am sure that I will have a problem, whatever the verdict may be, but especially when the verdict has to be guilty (as I expect it will be). I do not have a problem with the fact that I will believe that the USA System of Justice not has functioned very well in these matters. Neither will I have problems with the fact that I do not agree with the judgment of the majority of the people USA, that I do not accept their competence. That is a normal position to me, to disagree with “normal” people.
I do not like powerful men. I do not like official points of view. I do not like spokesmen. I do know that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
And still, I am sure that I will find myself not easily grappling with no small ethical contradictions regarding two different and at the same time quite equal positions: Israel/Palestine and Strauss-Kahn/the room maid (her name is not known by me).
- I will not believe that justice has done in the case of DSK
- I know for sure that the Palestinian people are victim and that Israel is guilty
In both cases the information I have is about the same: the same lot of relevant data, proportional to the available amount of data, while my competences are limited when it comes to distinguish the quality of the data.
My not so tiny hypocrisy for the days to come!
Post a Comment