Is it possible to have an ethical conversation about the Middle East?

Dec 9, 2024
View of the Earth, nebula, galaxy and stars. Sunrise over blue planet Earth, view from space. Solar system element. Elements of this image furnished by NASA. ______ Url(s): https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/144898/earth-at-night-black-marble-2016-color-maps/144945l https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/collection/1484/blue-marble?page=1 https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-milky-way-lights-up-an-orbital-night-pass/ Image:iStock/ buradaki

For those living far away from the Middle East – for example, in countries like Australia – it seems that everyone has a strong view about the events occurring there. What’s more, everyone is convinced their view is the morally correct one. In all discussions, ethical-sounding language abounds: depending on the perspective, we might hear references to “human rights”, “freedom”, “self-defence”, “security”, “terrorism”, “war crimes”, “humanitarian aid”, “human shields”, or even “genocide”.

Everyone is adamant that ethics is on their side. Any argument, no matter how seemingly self-evident, has a ready answer. A suggestion that it is wrong to target civilians, for example, is countered by an assertion that “collateral damage” is a common, acceptable part of warfare; a claim that it is wrong to bomb hospitals is rejected on the basis that such prohibitions do not apply if the hospital is being used as a human shield; criticism of the murder of children is dismissed with the assertion that it is justified by the “right to self-defence”. The fact that none of these responses actually constitutes a valid ethical argument does not seem to matter. In any case, whatever the reply, no-one ever changes their mind.

There are some obvious problems here. How do we distinguish between ethical claims that stand in direct contradiction to each other? Is it possible that they are somehow simultaneously all valid? If no-one ever shifts their position is any meaningful conversation taking place? If not, are we seeing anything more than a repetition of pre-existing points of view with no possibility of progress towards mutual understanding, let alone resolution of disagreements?

These problems are far from trivial because the question they are really raising is a fundamental one: is authentic ethical discourse possible at all anymore in such difficult circumstances? There can be no doubt that people in countries far away from a conflict can have intense feelings, even if the violent collapse of dialogue engulfing the conflict region itself does not apply. However, as many authors, such as, for example, the well-known philosophers Amartya Sen and Zygmunt Bauman, have shown, despite our differences and the challenges posed by changing cultural environments, we have traditionally valued the vigorous ferment of civil society, with its supposed commitment to respectful, if often tense, conversations across world-views, cultures, religions, genders, and political and ethical perspectives. What is at stake now is whether such conversations are still possible.

Of course, it is not only in relation to the Middle East that concerns have arisen about the erosion of ethical discourse. In her classic work The Human Condition, the philosopher Hannah Arendt described how political language was becoming instrumentalised. Indeed, it is now a commonplace that political discussions rarely incorporate substantive ethical content. In place of careful, disinterested reflection and deliberation, words are commonly deployed as weapons to gain an advantage over an opponent. In social media, this has become an art form, with shrill claims everywhere declaring an adversary has been “destroyed”, “demolished”, “ruined”, “humiliated”, “shamed” or “crushed”.

As fragile and tenuous as ethical dialogue might now be, however, the need to preserve and strengthen it is of extreme urgency. In these days of intensifying moral complexity the potential consequences of conflicts and environmental destruction have become devastating. It may only be through uncompromising ethical reflection and analysis that options for alternative pathways can be constructed.

For progress to be made, however, more will be required than a shallow repetition of ethical-sounding words. Rather, what is needed is a genuine commitment to talking and listening, based on mutual respect, an openness to opposing ideas, and flexibility in the face of the emerging factual circumstances. The contemporary philosophers Jurgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel have sought to lay out such conditions of possibility of ethical discourse: they include shared assumptions about the nature and force of morality, an unqualified acceptance that all protagonists have equal value, that ethical discourse is open to all, and that the conduct of ethical conversations proceeds in a manner uncontaminated by power, wealth and other kinds of advantage. Additional fundamental assumptions, which ought to be universal, include the prohibition of torture and collective punishment and the protection of vulnerable individuals such as children and the elderly.

While these assumptions may be necessary preconditions of ethical discourse they do not, of course, tell us how to ensure its success. Nonetheless, if such premises were accepted it would not be difficult to imagine some of the conclusions that might emerge from an authentic ethical dialogue about the Middle East. For a start, crude, tendentious formulations in support of one side or the other would no longer be tenable. It would become possible to identify and openly condemn actions by all parties that transgress ethical imperatives. Practices like the deliberate killing of children, deprivation of education and health care, torture and mass starvation would be abjured. A consensus might even emerge in favour of the need to find a path to avoid further atrocities and to work together to minimise suffering and restore peace.

The revival of ethical discourse would bring with it multiple benefits. Locally, it would enhance social solidarity by affirming the common values underlying civil society. Nationally, it would enable our own divided communities to build novel partnerships in the service of shared interests. Globally, it would empower governments to engage fruitfully and independently with each other to assist friends and allies – and even adversaries – to find non-violent solutions to apparently intractable conflicts.

Ethical discourse today may be weakened but it is not completely dead. Even if the obstacles are palpable and forbidding, the imperative has never been stronger to do what we can to keep alive its flickering flame.

Share and Enjoy !