This article was posted elsewhere, so I’ll just copy my comment from there over here:
I generally enjoy listening to/reading Sam Harris and always go away from his pieces with the feeling of having learned something new, some fact or perspective, however small. It’s kind of the same here, but, I think his arguments are, at least in part, deeply flawed here.
I find the distinction between victims of terror and collateral damage problematic. Under the line what he’s saying here, is that their quantities are not comparable because they are of very different nature. I can’t agree with that. Dead people are dead people no matter how they died. They had lives, family, friends, … To them it makes no difference if they died because of terror or as collateral damage. Thinking back to the WTC attack and the wars that followed Sam Harris’ notion suggests, that the >3.000 victims of terrorism could be worse than the >1.000.000 collateral in the following wars, because of their quality and the quantity not being comparable. In my book, that’s plain nonsense.
I tend to agree with his stance on “us” (western world/democracies) having a set of higher moral standards than Hamas and others we would consider failed states or dictatorships. Though, he and I share a compatible set of morals in our upbringing. I am personally opposed to absolute morals as they are usually provided by religious texts. But in the spirit of democracy I acknowledge that a majority could decide and settle on a set of morals incompatible with mine. I could argue all I want and never claim to be objectively correct. But, more importantly, especially when looking at Gaza and Hamas, as he points out himself, our moral compass wasn’t that different in sometimes very recent history. “Our” progress on the moral front was made in times of peace (at least at home) and economic stability and success. If “we” deny a group of people (I’m deliberately not saying society here) the conditions we had to achieve what we consider our superior morals, we can’t be surprised if they don’t share them. And I would go a step further and argue, that we are not in a morally justifiable position to criticize them for their “lack of morals”.
Sam Harris isn’t really saying much contrary to what I’m saying here. He’s just conveniently leaving out the angles I’m bringing up. Knowing lots of what he’s said/written and being familiar with his eloquence and rhetorics, I’m tempted to assume it is very deliberate. Hence I’m pretty disappointed in him for this particular piece.
There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
A Shia Islam sect called Hashshashins were carrying out terroristic assassinations in late 11th century. But in contrast to current islamistic terrorists, they were quite a lot more civilized, as their targets weren’t so much civilians. But they did carry out asymmetric strikes from a position of weakness, which sounds similar to how current radical islamists fight.
Whether this has anything to do with the current strikes is questionable, but I thought it’s an interesting history which might hint at some underlying meme.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I’m obviously not a military tactician, but I cannot see how a war like this could be waged without causing civilian casualties – when the enemy is deliberately using civilians and civilian structures as shields like Hamas.
Here’s the relevant part of his Wikipedia article:
Harris opposes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and Jewish claims of ownership made in the Bible. Despite this, Harris has said due to the hostility towards Jews, he has conceded that if there is one religious group which needs protections in the form of a state, it is Israel.[72][73]
With regard to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, he has criticized both Israel and Palestine for committing war crimes. He has indicated that he believes that Israel genuinely wants peace and that its neighbours are more devoted to the destruction of Israel.[74] Harris has also said that Palestine is more guilty, citing Palestine and Hamas’ use of human shields and genocidal rhetoric towards the Jews as reasons Palestine is more morally culpable.[75] He names these as reasons that Israel has a right to defend itself against Palestine.[76]
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
This article was posted elsewhere, so I’ll just copy my comment from there over here:
I generally enjoy listening to/reading Sam Harris and always go away from his pieces with the feeling of having learned something new, some fact or perspective, however small. It’s kind of the same here, but, I think his arguments are, at least in part, deeply flawed here.
I find the distinction between victims of terror and collateral damage problematic. Under the line what he’s saying here, is that their quantities are not comparable because they are of very different nature. I can’t agree with that. Dead people are dead people no matter how they died. They had lives, family, friends, … To them it makes no difference if they died because of terror or as collateral damage. Thinking back to the WTC attack and the wars that followed Sam Harris’ notion suggests, that the >3.000 victims of terrorism could be worse than the >1.000.000 collateral in the following wars, because of their quality and the quantity not being comparable. In my book, that’s plain nonsense.
I tend to agree with his stance on “us” (western world/democracies) having a set of higher moral standards than Hamas and others we would consider failed states or dictatorships. Though, he and I share a compatible set of morals in our upbringing. I am personally opposed to absolute morals as they are usually provided by religious texts. But in the spirit of democracy I acknowledge that a majority could decide and settle on a set of morals incompatible with mine. I could argue all I want and never claim to be objectively correct. But, more importantly, especially when looking at Gaza and Hamas, as he points out himself, our moral compass wasn’t that different in sometimes very recent history. “Our” progress on the moral front was made in times of peace (at least at home) and economic stability and success. If “we” deny a group of people (I’m deliberately not saying society here) the conditions we had to achieve what we consider our superior morals, we can’t be surprised if they don’t share them. And I would go a step further and argue, that we are not in a morally justifiable position to criticize them for their “lack of morals”.
Sam Harris isn’t really saying much contrary to what I’m saying here. He’s just conveniently leaving out the angles I’m bringing up. Knowing lots of what he’s said/written and being familiar with his eloquence and rhetorics, I’m tempted to assume it is very deliberate. Hence I’m pretty disappointed in him for this particular piece.
Well said.
Thanks.
This is extremely well put, especially the penultimate paragraph! Thank you for taking the time to put this in words.
Thanks for the kind feedback. I’m happy I made sense. I don’t always do ;-)
There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.
That’s because Sam Harris is a virulent Islamophobe. As much as he may dislike Israel and Judaism, he dislikes Muslims more.
He is a neo-con who uses the jargon of liberal politics to mask his Imperialist and often racist views.
A Shia Islam sect called Hashshashins were carrying out terroristic assassinations in late 11th century. But in contrast to current islamistic terrorists, they were quite a lot more civilized, as their targets weren’t so much civilians. But they did carry out asymmetric strikes from a position of weakness, which sounds similar to how current radical islamists fight.
Whether this has anything to do with the current strikes is questionable, but I thought it’s an interesting history which might hint at some underlying meme.
I’m obviously not a military tactician, but I cannot see how a war like this could be waged without causing civilian casualties – when the enemy is deliberately using civilians and civilian structures as shields like Hamas.
I don’t think I’d listened to or read Sam Harris before, but he sounds like an apologist for war criminals.
deleted by creator
He really dislikes religious fundamentalism that seeps into terrorism and murder. How about you?
He is also a racist that believes IQ (which is bullshit in its own right) is tied to race and that Muslim people should be profiled.
Oh, and he is sexist to boot.
Sam Harris shold not be a source for any kind of morality lesson.
Here’s the relevant part of his Wikipedia article: