There are many people who believe that the US and its allies should stay out of Syria, despite the thousands of Syrians, between two separate incidents, affected by the use of chemical weapons. I already made up my mind on what I think should be done, but it didn't come without some considerable reflection of the various arguments. However I've been shaking my head lately, as I read comments and commentary online from those folks trying to advocate for and against some sort of intervention in Syria. Most people appear to be unwilling to tackle their cognitive dissonance over Syria; many of them might know it exists, but seem to prefer to ignore it completely.
They're not our friends / we're helping our enemies
One argument has suggested that we have no reason to help out people who are not our allies. But this therefore means that some lives are inherently more important to us than others. Apparently unaware, South Korea must be a fool, therefore, for having offered aid to North Korea, following devastating floods and typhoons.
I think it's fair to say that some level of moral turpitude is involved, to devalue humans based on whether or not they're our friends or who they support. Do you not stop to offer help to a total stranger, or do you first inquire about their background before deciding whether or not to help? For all you know, the person you're helping could be a wanted murderer!
If you're going to state unequivocally that the US should not get involved, you must conscientiously review then state that you're okay with not helping people that you find disagreeable. I will most certainly help Rush Limbaugh in a car accident; I will absolutely help people out of a burning jail.
Does not affect us
This is the clearest sign of attempting to alleviate one's cognitive dissonance, by removing morality from the equation altogether. I can use this excuse whenever I want: I don't need to donate money, because it doesn't affect me; torturing people is okay because I'm not a suspected terrorist. Sorry, but as the case was with Milgram's experiment, it's too easy to simply remove morality by excusing yourself from personal responsibility of your actions or inaction.
But does this disconnected argument even apply?
Nonintervention is not an inconsequential path. Not getting involved may increasingly shut America out of the Middle-East's future and influence, and degrade America's moral standing as a beacon of freedom. It's a weak argument to state that the US can remain a beacon of freedom, but not support others seeking our help to be free while trying our best to keep out immigrants; we thus look to others as elitist jerks who talk big but do nothing to support that rhetoric. Do you still think that it doesn't affect us?
Complicity / no moral standing
As I wrote previously, you cannot simply state that because the US stood by during the Iran-Iraq War, the US therefore has no moral standing, and was complicit to the use of chemical weapons. And the fact of the matter is, if you ignore Syria's use of chemical weapons, you'd be undermining your own argument that the US was complicit with Iraq's use of chemical weapons, because you're demanding that the US continue to be complicit in the use of chemical weapons.
Not doing the right thing in the 80s, does not mean that we are excused from doing the right thing in Syria, either. As the proverb / idiom states, two wrongs don't make a right.
Can you live with yourself?
There are competing views on whether or not the US should get involved. I have a clear path on how to get involved and how to escalate that involvement, but it comes from having spent a lot of time examining my conscience. For others, ignorance is bliss. You are free to remain ignorant, but if you are going to bring up arguments that attempt to bypass your cognitive dissonance, I will not let you get away that easily!
No comments:
Post a Comment