I have the strong impression that, in arguing about topics such as this, there’s a strong tendency to align with some general views, cosmovisions in a sense, agendas, to use another term. I consider that wrong because, in my opinion, it typically leads to mix sensible ideas with very doubtful ones. As I mentioned in another post, George Orwell called that way of thinking “nationalist thinking” (George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism).
To name the main positions. Most people seem to align themselves with either:
a) A “conservative” view. According to this (among other things) Israel must defend itself at all costs, Syrian refugees are a danger and must be rejected, Islam is the cause of terrorism, …
b) A “liberal” view. According to this, Israel is the sole responsible of the middle east conlict, Syrian refugees must be welcomed, the "West"past actions are solely responsible for the current terrorist wave, …
I find both positions lacking in logic and ethical integrity in many points and I can’t help thinking that people supporting them are more concerned about advancing their pet positions than in reflecting upon important issues, just as G. Orwell described in his essay.
Just as an example of what ideas of either position I disagree with, I’ll address the topic of this thread and of a past one:
a) Conservative view. Their position about refugees is morally wrong and absurd. Refusing help to people running from a terrible war is wicked and only helps to justify criticism against the west, and especially about west’s hypocrisy. Even if very pressing circumstances would make it difficult or impossible to accept all refugees, alternative solutions should be investigated and, at the very least, recognize that any rejection’s a tragedy. My opinion of “conservatives” can’t be worse every time I hear them, not only advocating the dismissal of refugees, but also doing it in a cold manner, as if, at the very least, doing that weren’t a moral dilemma.
b) Liberal view. The idea that every act of terror, no matter how cruel and senseless, is (if not justified, at least explained by a “collective” guilt arising from the western past political acts is also morally repugnant. Besides, it’s just being blind, if they insist on not seeing the direct connection between modern Islam as a religion/culture/ideology [mind you, not of individual muslims] in the current wave of terror attacks, as well as on undefendable attitudes to women, homosexuals, non-muslims and other collectives. And that, independently of Islam’s past achievements.
As a further example [from yet another forum thread], maximalist, blanket notions about Israel/Palestine, as if one of the parts are “good” and the other “bad” are childish and simplistic, if not outright silly. That includes both the typical “conservative” and the “liberal” positions, at least as they tend to be voiced in forums such as this one and others in the net. It’s obvious for anyone who has not relinquished their ability to reason, that both parties have carried out unjustifiable acts and that both of them have a right to a safe, dignified existence that they’re all too often denied.
