Friday, April 29, 2005
(1:35 PM) | Brad:
An Ethically Unpalatable Thought
A caveat: I'm posting this in the spirit of Adam's statement that The Weblog is akin to a basement discussion, when one can throw out ideas simply on the grounds that s/he is curious if they'll stick anywhere.I've been out of the country and away from computers quite a bit this week. As a result, I've not had as much time to steal away from finishing a thesis as I usually have, and thus have not been able to follow the surprisingly contentious discussion on the various 'Going Public' threads (newcomer alert: that thread title has nothing to do with homosexual revelations, at least on the surface, mostly out of fear that at least one commenter would love the sinner not the sin to death). The one thing that caught my eye was the various derogatory comments about Lenin; or, more specifically, deregatory comments about wishing happy birthday to a dead revolutionary with a violent streak. [edited]
I mentioned in the comments, in one of those posts, that I'd celebrate Chairman Mao's birthday if there was good cake involved -- and I stand by that. I've attended many a birthday party for people who'd given me crappy gifts for mine, so what's 30 or 40 million dead amongst friends? In that same comment, I go on to say, without really knowing why at the time, that 'Hell, after all, I still celebrate Christmas.' A toss-off silly comment, I know. Like so much of what I write here and elsewhere.
Ah, but what if ... what if the trashbin of my own consciousness had a point, no matter how banal! I mean, if we are justified -- and yes, of course, we are -- in indicting Lenin and Mao for the deaths for which they were responsible, in whatever way we wish to determine ethical responsibility, in what way are we not also justified in indicting Christ? Not the Jesus of history, mind you; and thus, for the sake of argument, not the literary Jesus of the Gospels. No ... but the Jesus Christ of faith, he who / that which is embodied, so goes the various doctrines, in His Church Victorious. If the latter is the case, would not such a Christ of faith, who is just as real for those willing to kill in his name (as they have, obviously), be culpable for many more millions of deaths than either Mao or Lenin combined. Granted, the Christ of faith has an indefinite lifespan and practically infinite agency, and thus is not on the same morally equivalent ground as Mao or Lenin, but he (that is to say, finally, the Church) is surely keeping them good company in whatever Hell the best laid plans of mice and men end up building.
Adam made the point not so long ago that it was irritating that the proponents of liberal democracy never felt as though they had to defend it of its historical ills -- merely, I extrapolate from his statement, propagate its extension into backward lands of veils and sand. His point was not to say that liberal democracy was a priori bad, or perhaps even worse than any of its 'evil others' (though he surely believes the latter!). Rather, the point was that what passes as typical ethical analysis was short-sighted at best, and intentionally negligent at worst. That, perhaps, we would do a lot better than counting body counts when it comes to judging a political ethos, because it ultimately opens up a rhetorical can of worms for either side. I use the obviously stupid example of the Christ of faith to say essentially the same thing.
What, then, is the criteria for making an ethical judgment, the judgment that must be made? Should we disregard body counts entirely, and thus silence the horror of suffering worldwide. Well ... no, of course not. One's silence toward suffering only makes the screams all the more loud. But surely there is a way to attend to suffering, that caused by either side, in such a way to make an ethical assessment of each that breaches the existing horizon of our all-too-easy differentiations of 'better than' / 'worse than'. The question is, of course: what is that way?
