BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Images of Abortions - should they be allowed to influence ethics ?

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
Pingle!Pop
08:58 / 06.05.04
sdv:

I arrive at my relationship to the war on the basis that imperialism and colonialism (and not diversions into the illegality and legality of war) is what makes the war wrong consequently the images are irrelevant... The fact in the case of the Iraq misadventure is the colonial activity, not the inevitable and obvious act of Western Troops torturing suspects.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to see how, as it would appear, you seem to judge any moral issue by a single factor, and then ignore any other matters. It has to be said, going about things like that would seem to be a good way to arrive at some pretty ****ed-up and black-and-white thinking about things. Yes, the war is about imperialism. However, other deciding factors in its morality are, for example, the fact that as a result tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died (y'know, I consider that one a pretty big issue), the fact that Iraqi detainees are being tortured and, though I consider it to be a grossly overstated factor which is far outweighed by others, the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime and "liberation" of the Iraqi people. You may, as I'd assume most of the people on this board do, still come to the conclusion that the war is wrong, but not to even think factors than the single one you've decided is important into consideration seems, to me, pretty insanely ridiculous thinking.

In relation to specific events what I'm suggesting is that an image (say a newspaper photograph), or a series of images (a film or video) can never be understood as being "messy things like facts" - because they are not facts.

Well, no. It's possible for images, just like text, to contain aspects which serve no informative value, but to say that all images are entirely spectacle without any factual information seems... well, just completely wrong. Pictures of people tied up and being electrocuted, ****ed on, whatever, tell us that... (and I feel a certain deja vu here) there are people being tied up and electrocuted, ****ed on, whatever. They could be faked photographs. One could write a fake report. The debate around "spectacle" isn't, as far as I'm concerned, anything to do with the advantages of images and video compared to other mediums, but to do with uselessly uninformative presentation.

That is:

And it is here that we disagree. Or at least, I disagree with the point I think you are making. I don't see moral judgements as a finely balanced scale in which everything tips the balance to the extent that rhetoric becomes immoral. (You almost seem to be saying that an argument or persuasion is wrong if it contradicts your moral stance. Which seems...odd.)
Can I discount arguments which I think are inappropriate, even if they induce some reaction in me? To a large extent, yes. (Lurid)

Well, yes, I do believe that everything tips the scale to some extent, even if only in a very minor way, and so yes, pure rhetoric has no justifiable place in deciding morals, and so is, if not immoral, at least amoral. Yes, you may be able to discount/overcome any influence rhetoric/spectacle has on you, but I'd consider your consideration of the rhetoric separate to the influence (however small or large it might be) it will inevitably have on you. Perhaps, because you resent the way in which the information or persuasion's presented and therefore consider it a bit suspect, you might actually be swayed the opposite direction to that intended, but I'd still say that that isn't a part of the automatic emotional impact of the rhetoric, but a separate thought process. And no, I'm not at all arguing against anything which contradicts one's moral stance; I'm arguing against aspects of presentation which serve no purpose in informing the viewer, but have only an emotional impact despite their irrelevance.

For example: consider a TV program. Consider it presents certain information to its viewers. Now, consider it presents that exact same information, but in a deep, sinister voice. I doubt it's particularly contentious to reckon that the vast majority of viewers' opionions on the matter being discussed in the program would be affected by the fact that its being talked about in that voice. The voice, in that example, is what I'd consider pure spectacle/rhetoric; would you say that it has any justifiable place in affecting people's moral decisions.

Images and emotive arguments are ok. And one can be misled by any technique of argumentation.

I know! I know, I know, I know! I've spent half of my most recent entries explaining that I'm perfectly aware that misleading information (or lack thereof) can be presented in any format! And that I'm not at all arguing againt the role of emotion in reaching moral decisions, only the inevitable emotional response to purely rhetorical/spectacular aspects of presentation! Have I not said both those things clearly enough at least twice already?
 
 
sdv (non-human)
09:36 / 06.05.04
Mille

I'm sorry but you argument doesn't work for me because the appalling things you mention are the consequence of imperialism and colonialism - in events like the Iraq colonial (mis)adventure, you should start from the understanding that the domination of one group of people by an imperial state is wrong and not from the terrible fact of the 100s of thousands of people who have died in Iraq since Hussian was encouraged into power by the West. In actual fact if nobody had died (an impossible phantasy this) as a result of the imperial/colonial (mis)adventure it would still be utterly wrong because it always is.


images - ok accepted - i was responding to a statement that images represent facts and that i was not allowing facts to get in the way of things.... (something like that anyway).
 
 
sdv (non-human)
09:57 / 06.05.04
Lurid

Rather badly I admit - I was trying to bring out how 'emotion' does and can enter into moral and ethical considerations, at least as some post-modern ethicists have phrased it. It is significantly different however from the idea that because I have an emotional response to something, an image or some other event that I should necessarily allow that to influence my ethical and socio-political stance on something. (on the plane of diffference on which we all coexist my personal emotional responses are perhaps to trivial. being moved equally by watching a crippled pigeon hobbling on a station platform and the image of 10,000 human skulls in Rwanda does rather cause me to question such responses...)

I'm not really Kantian about these thngs but am always reminded of the accusation he throws out in CPR about 'indifferentists'.

The Welsh point is a good example, I hadn't considered those aspects of UK colonialism at all. (laughs) But then given that a child is being beaten for speaking an illegal language , that would have at some point in UK history have led to its being forcibly migrated to a foriegn land (Yes it did happen) does rather suggest that referring to a hstorical ghost agrees with both cases.... I suppose it rather proves the point that colonialism/imperialism is not acceptable.

"one is left with the simple truth that colonialism puts food on one's table and fuel in one's car."

There you go - how on earth can you imagine that this is true. The numbers simply don't add up - Take the case of the USA - the average citizen in the USA is poorer as a consequence of the US imperial activity because the militarisation and colonial activity has been paid for by the almost complete distruction of the US inner city and the new deal... (Mike Davis's argument).
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:00 / 06.05.04
Sorry

I said Lurid rather than Linus (idiot that I am)
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:18 / 06.05.04
... And Mille instead of Mlle again? Anyway:

I'm sorry but you argument doesn't work for me because the appalling things you mention are the consequence of imperialism and colonialism - in events like the Iraq colonial (mis)adventure, you should start from the understanding that the domination of one group of people by an imperial state is wrong and not from the terrible fact of the 100s of thousands of people who have died in Iraq since Hussian was encouraged into power by the West.

Erm... I can't really see how you're not still doing the same thing as before: concentrating on one single (yes, important, but certainly not all-important) issue and ignoring everything else. Yes, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths are due to imperialism. They're also due to some very influential oil businesses wanting to become even richer. Possibly also to a misguided attempt to protect the US people from "terrorist" action. You never know, maybe even a desire by some to make lives better for those that haven't been blown to pieces. And the results of the war in Iraq? Yes, the domination of one group of people by an imperial state. But also... you know, deaths, torture, ****ing up even further of the infrastructure, endless list blah blah blah...

And again in your example on bull-fighting. You know, perhaps people enjoy watching barbaric acts being committed to bulls. Are, say, music concerts entirely financially motivated? A few things to consider when deciding the morality of bull-fighting:

- Lots of people enjoy it. The enjoyment of lots of people has to be worth something, right?
- Bulls are killed, and in, as far as I'm aware, a not-particularly-humane way. Think you might want to put that under "bad".
- Yeah, some of the organisers undoubtedly do have some financial motive (though I'd very much doubt, as you suggest, that it's their only motive) - good for the economy? Bad because of cynical exploitation? It depends on your viewpoint, really.

You can't just decide what the overriding factor in any moral situation and then ignore everything else. Unless you're going for extremely simple moral decisions ("Should I commit some random act of violence?") pretty much everything has innumerable factors to consider. In the case of the war again, yes, I at least would consider the US' imposition of their rule and "way of life" on a foreign people to be bad, but I think people would be right to consider me pretty blind and stupid if my opinions on the war were entirely limited to that.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
13:04 / 06.05.04
Mlle (sorrry)

And of course I respond by saying agin that you are focusing on the effects rather than the causes. In the case of colonialism/imperialism the effects you mention are always already present. They are constituent and ever-present parts of the colonial process. The reason why I persist in identifying the singularity at the heart of the process is because it is simply impossible to get anywhere listing the 1001 terrible events that actually make up the Iraq (mis)adventure. Yes of course they do take place and of course I am not dismissing the actuality of the events - merely insisting that they result from the colonial/imperial process. When someone says 'colonialism', to unpack the phrase is to understand that the 1001 terrible events will or have already taken place.

The inumerable factors you ask me to consider - I just don't see this as relevant to taking a position on these kinds of issues. None of the events discussed are that morally and ethically complex - Iraq, Bullfighting (aka torture of animals) etc. There simply aren't that many factors to consider in these events.

A more complex event which would require that we consider many factors might be to consider whether because a regime is despotic we should not supply the hospitals with anti-biotics, Or whether because a Prime Ministerial or Presidential candidate is a woman or another minority we should Vote for them. Both of which require careful thought and consideration both a position could be arrived at.

I didn't bring up bullfighting - but I of course disagree with the idea that a lot of people enjoying something makes it acceptable, that kind of moral relativism is absurd as well as being unacceptable. The reason is that some actions can never be justified - the torturing and painful killing of animals for entertainment is as morally repugnent as the processes of colonialism and just as impossible to justify. I'm not really that interested in unpacking the series of barbaric practices that constitute the 'bullfight' (or any other such 'entertainment') - the singularity that makes it morally repugnant and unaccepptable is the suffering of the animals. From such a position none of your points can be said to be acceptable.

And of course how could I look into the face of the Other, into the face of difference, if I accepted that it is possible to justify the torture and murder of the human and non-human on the basis of sadistic pleasure and power (master/salave dialectic of course).

i think that's a bit clearer...
 
 
Pingle!Pop
14:09 / 06.05.04
Not particularly. Well, clearer possibly, but I still think you're being pretty blind.

And of course I respond by saying agin that you are focusing on the effects rather than the causes.

No, on both. I'm saying that neither the causes (including, as I said, such things as oil businesses' desire to hoard yet more riches and even some people's misguided attempts to protect the American public) nor the effects (including the torture of Iraqi detainees and tens of thousands of deaths) are entirely, one-hundred-percent colonialism/imperialism.

In the case of colonialism/imperialism the effects you mention are always already present. They are constituent and ever-present parts of the colonial process. The reason why I persist in identifying the singularity at the heart of the process is because it is simply impossible to get anywhere listing the 1001 terrible events that actually make up the Iraq (mis)adventure. Yes of course they do take place and of course I am not dismissing the actuality of the events - merely insisting that they result from the colonial/imperial process. When someone says 'colonialism', to unpack the phrase is to understand that the 1001 terrible events will or have already taken place.

Sorry to say this so bluntly, but that's complete and utter rubbish. Yes, a lot of things to do with the war can be put down to colonialism, but to say that that's the only factor and the only thing worth considering seems absolutely ridiculous. If I wanted to, I could just as easily say that all the effects of the war are due to George Bush's desire to make himself look like a wonderful patriotic "war president", which would appear to be one of the many factors influencing the decision to go to war.

None of the events discussed are that morally and ethically complex - Iraq, Bullfighting (aka torture of animals) etc. There simply aren't that many factors to consider in these events.

Well, there certainly aren't if you just decide that one factor should be the decider in any given situation. I'm sure you could find plenty of people who'd be happy to provide you with a huge list of considerations re: the morality of the war in Iraq.

A more complex event which would require that we consider many factors might be to consider whether because a regime is despotic we should not supply the hospitals with anti-biotics, Or whether because a Prime Ministerial or Presidential candidate is a woman or another minority we should Vote for them. Both of which require careful thought and consideration both a position could be arrived at.

Not really. More difficult to decide, perhaps, if one sits at either end of the political spectrum, because there're major conflicting issues, but that doesn't mean there are more issues to do with such things.

I didn't bring up bullfighting - but I of course disagree with the idea that a lot of people enjoying something makes it acceptable, that kind of moral relativism is absurd as well as being unacceptable.

Of course I never said it makes it acceptable. But it is one of many small things to take into consideration, even if one does consider that other factors outweigh it considerably. In the case of, say, whether it's morally justifiable to put on a rock concert, the fact that people'd enjoy it would probably be one of the most significant factors, countered only by small negative considerations such as, say, the minor medical dangers or slight possibility of things getting out of hand in a dangerous fashion.

When you say "that kind of moral relativism" do you mean all moral relativism, or just moral relativism with regards to subjects on which you personally have made up your mind? If you'd like to discuss whether morals are absolute or relative, I'd suggest that another thread would be the place for it, as it's getting a little too off-topic by that point, and I'll be happy to write a rant on the subject.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
15:37 / 06.05.04
Mille

I'll have to think about how and if it's possible to bridge this divide, before I respond in any detail. I'm tempted to raise the spectre of Sartre, Fanon but this doesn't seem the place to have that kind of intellectual discussion - do you think ?

Oh and what list of considerations on the Iraq adventure might that be that I haven't already seen and taken into account ?

When I said moral relativism - I meant precisely that using the phrase as a technical term. (We could disagree with the definition I'm using but that's a different issue of course). To be honest I'm not particularly interested in whether a given moral value might be absolute or relative - I've refrained from making any of my usual absolute moral statements as it would be a distraction given the topic...

I did consider doing what Tanantmon suggested regarding 'emotion' etc but wasn't sure...
 
 
Linus Dunce
17:59 / 06.05.04
The numbers simply don't add up - Take the case of the USA - the average citizen in the USA is poorer as a consequence of the US imperial activity [...]

But I'm not a US citizen. There are 60 million people here in the UK and nowhere near enough land to feed them all. US 'imperial activity' keeps the world trading at the right prices to supply us in the UK with food, which keeps us well and most importantly rich enough to invest in the US and buy US goods ... etc. US imperialism is not a conspiracy, it's a process; it's not a disease, it's a symptom.

Anyway, we left Topic City about 100 miles back.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:33 / 06.05.04
Yes, while we are at this point, can I try to drag things kicking and screaming and hopefully vaguely back to the subject matter, if not actually the thread abstract?

Abortions aside, lets consider the notion of TV SPECTACLE as a useful influence on ethical and moral issues...I think, in fact, the abortions program was 'Dispatches', right? Whatever, it doesn't matter much...But, Dispatches tonight was a program about the residents outrage in a town called Lee in Merrie England where the locals succesfully opposed the building of an Asylum Centre in their sleepy slice of heaven, based on, *if the program and its edit is to be believed*, extremely spurious, facile and useless justifications...The flip side of theprogram was interviews with the asylum applicants, and their tales of extreme degradation, torture, rape, and murder...So, are televised, or recorded interviews with asylum seekers allowed to influence ethical and moral issues surrounding refugees and immigration?

(OK, I spectacularly failed to drag the thread properly back on topic, but it was an effort).
 
 
sdv (non-human)
08:58 / 10.05.04
Money

Your question and it's implied positive answer is perhaps the same as the following question: Should the mass media with it's inherent and inevitable right-wing bias be allowed to influence the debate ? Why should we assume that people are capable of reading through the 'bias' when the actual evidence is contrary to this and suggests that the 'bias' is a representation that connects with the deeply embedded social imaginary ?

(How 'nice' to see that Norman Tebbit and M. Heseltine have become more liberal than the bunch of emergent neo-fascists elected by labour supporters...)
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply