There may not be agreement in every detailed aspect of morality within and across the various human civilisations, given the diverse beliefs and philosophies of life that exist. However, one can certainly observe a level of concurrence at a more general level. For example, very few would dispute the depravity of deliberately killing a defenceless child. Similarly, the immorality of committing armed robbery motivated by sheer greed, rather than seeking to satisfy basic human needs for survival. Therefore, such actions are classified as crimes in almost every part of the world.
What’s the virtue in grieving over starving children and giving money to charity, when you bomb them out of existence?
That is not to say that all crimes are the result of violating moral principles. Many aspects of morality have been relegated to the discretion of an individual. Thus, in many societies there is no legal obligation to save a drowning person or to feed a hungry individual. What cannot be disputed is the consensus on the relative scale of morality, regardless of the civilisation, religion or philosophy that one subscribes to. This is because all human beings accept the basic logic of greater reasoning. As an example, if verbal abuse is an offence than so is committing a murder or inflicting physical torture, by greater reasoning. Likewise, the value placed on a human life is always greater than animals. Given the choice of saving the life of a child or an animal, without doubt, most would choose the former.
Despite the above principle in this scientific, technological and rational era, the scale of morality often tends to be lopsided. The recent outrage in America caused by Janet Jackson exposing her right breast has perplexed many around the world. What happened to the much-proclaimed individual freedom and women?s rights, which dictates that the individuals have the prerogative in deciding what to wear and expose! Therefore, how is it that whilst advocating women?s right to choose, they are trying to deny Janet Jackson the right to expose her own body. Was it not for the same reason that the Taliban were criticised, when they enforced the veil and denied their women a choice?
If it was immoral for Janet Jackson to have exposed her breast, but yet, the American society accepts and advocates it as an endorsement of freedom for a woman to flaunt herself wearing a bikini, miniskirt, scanty blouse or even a fully clothed woman to make lewd dances with all the sexual innuendos. What is the underlying reason for making breast a taboo but not the other parts of the female body, like her legs, hairs, arms etc? Is it twisted or confusing morality?
The USA openly permits brothels, prostitution, homosexuality, and other forms of perversion are now in a state of shock by the exposure of a female breast! Which is ludicrous especially coming from a country that is the highest producer and consumer of Porn. It is even more farcical when considering that the Americans are almost oblivious to its forces that have committed war crimes in Iraq by massacring thousands of civilians under the false pretext of finding WMD, and now the ?innocent? George Bush wants to ?know? the facts.
What kind of society is scandalised by a woman’s breast during a football game, and yet objectifies women by filling the internet with crass pornography?
Now we have Donald Rumsfeld the ?unknown? philosopher, who stated the ?known? that “human beings are human beings”. Well, yes, so is “cats are cats” and “dogs are dogs”. He was referring to the recent carnage in Iraq, but had this been the result of a daisy cutter or a JDAM, or one of Bush?s mini-Nukes, would Rumsfeld have made such contemplation on the matter? More to the point, Rumsfeld was trying to state that killing is part of human nature? So, was that because he was being philosophical, or simply trying to vindicate his own actions?
When the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kissinger attempt to moralise about such issues, it?s like the vampires and werewolves lamenting on the sin of consuming human blood and flesh. In the same way, for the USA to have sought vindication by highlighting the evil nature of Saddam is like the creator of Frankenstein lecturing the world about the evil monster, whilst denying having any role in its creation.
Similarly, the Brits went into frenzy during the first Gulf war when the mass media televised the suffering inflicted on the animals due to the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields by Saddam?s retreating armies. The unintended poisoning of the animals was unacceptable but the deliberate poisoning of the Iraqi children using depleted Uranium was and is still acceptable! The outraged animal loving British intelligentsia had no problem in supporting its troops in murdering people in a far off country that did no wrong to its citizens. This display of such abnormal morality perhaps can be explained by their view of Arabs/Muslims as being lower than animals. They may not admit it openly, but centuries of sophisticated propaganda do have an impact in shaping ones mentality.
Why be in uproar over the death of innocent animals during oil fires, when you don’t want to discuss your burying alive of innocent humans?
The British and the USA government claimed at the time that they were ?rescuing? the ?poor? Kuwaitis. Yet again, in the world of twisted morality of these self proclaimed ?good doers?, they decided that the affluent Kuwaitis were a higher priority for liberation than the long suffering Palestinians, who have been at the receiving end of state terrorism and occupation for the last fifty years. Then they gloat about saving Muslims as opposed to the oil fields.
Nevertheless, by the same argument, how would the British react to a proposal by the Arabs/Muslims to send an army to protect the Irish Catholics, who have suffered in far greater magnitude than the Kuwaitis or the Kurds in Iraq? Similarly, sending a liberating Muslims force to the USA, in order to liberate the illegally occupied Hispanic lands, and to provide justice for the suffering inflicted on the Afro Americans. Reparation for them is certainly justified if the Jews are entitled to have the same.
There is then the usual lecture about the virtue of the monogamous West, versus the depraved polygamous Islamic world. Islamic polygamous marriages with its conditions and legal obligations are supposed to be immoral. Yet, it is these same nations that endorse multiple partners in the form of orgies and all sorts of sexual depravities as they are constantly pushing the boundaries of sexual taboos. The recent case of Cannibalism in Germany has highlighted that there are 800,000 or more websites promoting the issue. So anything is acceptable as long as it is not a second wife. Perverted morality!
Twisted morality can only yield twisted individuals. Therefore, is it any surprise that those leaders who lecture the Islamic world about women?s rights are the first ones to use women as mere tools? Everyone knows that whilst John Major was preaching about “back to basics”, he was violating the same with Edwina Curry. Clinton did the same with Monica Lewinsky and yet, he had the chutzpah to lecture the Saudi women about their rights. Or was he advocating that they should emulate Monica Lewinsky? Similarly, actress Bridget Bardot, who has hidden very little from her own children by appearing nude in so many semi-porno films, has the audacity to lecture Muslims about morality. Even the liberal Dutch and the blue Swedish are at it. It is easy to do this when the community ostracised does not have a voice, and its hands are tied behind its back.
Why is it oppressive to teach girls to wear the hijab, when it’s liberating to parade and grade them according to their sex appeal?
Some of this perverse morality perhaps can be attributed to the influence of Christian doctrines. Its central argument of the original ?sin? committed by one individual has caused God almighty to label and punish the entire human race as guilty forever. This surely defies logic, and is a prime example of twisted morality. How can we be guilty of something that we never partook or consented to? Then you have the TV Evangelists resorting to all sorts of acrobatics on stage, brainwashing people to give up their money, and many of these preachers eventually get caught with their pants down. It is a pity for the ordinary, sincere, and good-hearted Christians.
These preachers shout incessantly about the ?love of Christ?, ?love of God?, and most importantly ?love your enemy? but yet they have no qualms in justifying sending their armies to commit massacres to people who have done no wrong to them. Therefore we have the pre-emptive war of the medieval crusaders and Catholic inquisitionists, to the pre-emptive strikes by deploying Cluster bombs and JDAMS upon defenceless civilians today. The end result is the same; Death and destruction. So, how is it that the ?love? of Christ is advocated by inflicting so much violence! Surely another twisted morality!
One way to justify such actions to your own minds is to transform your opponent to an army of Satan whilst elevating yours as the army of God, as General William Boykin suggested. The reports emanating about the conduct of the USA solders in Iraq from their own quarters clearly shows that they are far from exemplary Christians. So the reader can imagine what is not being reported.
Another area of twisted morality is concerning the role of Western charity organisations. No one doubts their sincerity and hard work in making valuable contributions. However, if attention were paid to the amount of money that is being stolen through the IMF policies resulting in the poverty and debt, they would have realised their own predicament. Perhaps such things exist to erase the guilt of society resulting from exploitation of the third world. As many pointed out after killing all of Ali?s relatives in Iraq, he was brought over to England for treatment, and paraded on TV to score political points. In addition, perhaps it was also an attempt to boost the sales of the British medical facilities! Sick morality!
In a unipolar world the USA has a freehand in lecturing and dictating such twisted morality. Simultaneously the defeated and the colonised minds are accepting it wholesale, under the guise of progress and modernity without any form of analysis and critical examination. Furthermore, another dilemma with the constant change in the ethics is the difficulty in advocating the issue, as one day it may be taboo next day it is fashionable. The end result will be a more chaotic and uncertain society as is the case with those who practice twisted morality. Just examine the popularity of the shrinks.
Article courtesy of the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights