The Morality of Retaliation

Imagine someone from a building goes across town to a quiet neighbourhood and throws a grenade into a house, killing three people inside. The survivors in the house and their neighbours then set off with guns and bombs and head towards the building where the culprit is known to live.  They are told that a few people there might be friends of the killer, but the vast majority of the building’s residents have nothing to do with him. Nonetheless, consumed by the desire for vengeance, the now heavily armed group launch an all-out attack on the building, killing hundreds of defenceless people – children amongst the innocent victims. They insist that they just want to make sure the original murderer does not escape, and they cannot be blamed for the deaths they cause.

No government in the world, or any sane person for that matter, would for one moment accept what the killing mob have done as a legitimate response to what had previously happened, or tolerate it, let alone help them commit such atrocities.

Imagine now some terrorists have taken control of a county in the UK or the US. They declare themselves the administrator for that county, and one day they launch missiles at X, a foreign country, killing thousands of people there because they hate X.  The government of X announces its retaliation plan which involves shooting, bombing, starving, hundreds of thousands of people in the terrorist-run county.  The vast majority of those who are to be killed as a result do not support the terrorists, they do not support the launching of the missiles at X, they just want to live in peace. But in the name of hunting down the terrorists, the government of X keeps escalating their military actions even as dead bodies of innocent victim keep piling up.

What should be done?  The terrorists who launched deadly missiles should be brought to justice, certainly. What about the vengeance-seekers who order the mass killing of innocent people in that unfortunate county? Should they be aided with more guns and weapons? Or should they be stopped from taking even more lives?  

If we were residents of X ourselves, we might be caught up in the shock and anger, and if someone says with the press of a button, the terrorists responsible would be erased from the face of the earth, we might be all for pressing it. But what if that would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people as well – would we still want that button pressed?

Think now of being stuck in the cursed county. The people in control make all kinds of outrageous decisions. There’s nothing we can do. Nobody outside is going to help us. Instead, when the murderous people in charge set about killing people in another land, we get caught up in the retaliation and face being shot and bombed because there is nowhere else we can go.

Sometimes it is difficult to determine if an act is morally wrong or not.  Then there are times when it is the easiest thing in the world to recognise that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is unforgivably evil.

Fake & Furious: the politics of hate

When Islamic extremists commit acts of violence, right-wing politicians declare it’s all down to Islam being what it is. But when racist extremists commit acts of violence, right-wing politicians ignore racism, and tell us to focus on the ‘real’ underlying causes (by which they mean ‘immigration’).

So how is immigration causing racist violence? Is it because foreign students are paying higher fees to study at our universities and thus help sustain the higher education sector which has been severely underfunded by the government? Is it because carers come from abroad to provide the much-needed support for our frail and elderly population? Is it because the NHS only functions thanks to the dedicated work of doctors and nurses who have moved here? Is it because immigrants pay taxes that contribute to our public finance?

It turns out it’s not immigration, but the negative perception of immigration that is connected to racist extremism. And what causes that negative perception? Here are four main factors: 

[1] Hate-carriers

There are people who are plagued by an emotional void that can only be filled by directing hate at a group of scapegoats. When they pick on immigrants, it gives them a sense of superiority. By being hurtful about people they can falsely depict in negative ways, they feel better about themselves. They then set about infecting others with hate, and rejoice in their twisted camaraderie. 

[2] Scapegoat-hunting politicians

There are politicians whose priority is to help the rich and powerful. They lower taxes for the wealthy, deregulate for large corporations, and underfund public services. Then in order to deflect public discontent, they tell people to fear and resent immigrants and refugees, and blame immigration for the problems caused by privatisation and austerity.

[3] Enemy states 

From fuelling anti-EU rage to stoking riots, Russian-linked activities are known to have been promoted to destabilise the UK. By spreading lies about immigrants and refugees, stirring up anger and hate, enemy states sharpen social divisions in our country. Ironically, many self-styled nationalists on the Right in the US and Europe have become pro-Russia because they welcome their support in demonising immigrants.

[4] Social media profiteers

Profiteering owners of social media platforms are well aware that in enabling people to send messages anonymously to spread false information, promote racial hatred, and incite violence, they are causing psychological and physical damages to countless innocent people. But they continue to prioritise their profit-making at the expense of others’ suffering.

If we are to tackle the causes of negative perception of immigration, we need to deal with the four factors outlined above. Hate-carriers need to be isolated from infecting others. Their attempts to radicalise those susceptible to such manipulation should be tracked and stopped. Scapegoat-hunting politicians should be exposed for their insidious agenda to weaken public services and mislead people into blaming immigrants. Enemy states’ role in promoting anti-immigration lies and propaganda must be widely flagged up so people can see where the real threats are coming from. And social media profiteers will only take their responsibility seriously if they are sufficiently and swiftly fined for allowing hate-mongering to flourish through their platforms.

To get tough on racist extremism, we do indeed have to get tough on the causes of racist extremism.

Is Englishness Your Cup of Tea?

Some people are worried that the notion of England and symbols such as the flag of St George might have become too closely associated with a form of intolerant nationalism; and that it would be better to speak of Britishness rather than Englishness. 

Then there are those who insist that being ‘English’ is all about colonialism, imperialism, and class oppression.  And one should only mention it in an apologetic tone and never express Englishness with pride.

But surely how a national culture is defined cannot be left to people who try to hijack it for their own jingoistic fantasies, or to those who can see nothing but torturous nightmares in its history. Of course England, like any other nation, has good and bad elements. Yet while we should condemn wrongful deeds and prevent their recurrence, we should also celebrate the momentous and the inspirational.

When we reflect on our Englishness, what shines out?

Our capacity for integration. From the arrival of the French Normans in 1066, intermingling with Celts, Angles, Saxons, Danes, to subsequent enrichment with people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, other parts of Europe, Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent, the Far East – giving us an incomparable cultural richness.

Our firm stand against arbitrary rule and oppression. We produced the Magna Carta in 1215; we rid ourselves of two unacceptable monarchs in the 17^th century; we abolished the slave trade in 1807; we resolutely fought the Nazis and fascists; and through the guidance of our MP for Liverpool West Derby, we helped to establish the European Convention for Human Rights (ratified in 1953).

Our inventiveness in creating a better society. Look back on the reformists who improved factory working conditions, and advanced public health; cooperative pioneers who shared returns more equitably; innovators in community land trusts to widen access to housing; and the politicians who created the National Health Service.

Our internationalist and compassionate outlook. We co-founded the United Nations. England is home to Eglantyne Jebb and Dorothy Buxton who founded Save the Children in 1919; to the establishment of Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) in 1942; and to Peter Benenson who set up Amnesty international in 1961.

Our scientific heroes. Francis Bacon and the Royal Society he inspired; Isaac Newton and the laws of physics; Charles Darwin and natural selection; Michael Faraday and electromagnetism; Francis Crick and the genetic sciences; Tim Berners-Lee and the World Wide Web. To name but a few.

Our creative geniuses. William Shakespeare, Henry Fielding, Jane Austen, George Eliot, Charles Dickens, H. G. Wells, Agatha Christie, George Orwell, Arthur C. Clarke, the list of writers alone goes on and on. Then there are the incredible filmmakers – Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, Danny Boyle, Carol Reed, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan; the painters, the sculptors, the television show creators, the composers, and the great bands such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Genesis, Pink Floyd, the Specials, Queen, U2, Blur, etc.

What appeals to some of us may not appeal so much to others. But then again, diversity is a recurring feature of English achievements. We can each mix and match to come up with our own favourite brew of Englishness – to savour and to praise.

It’s ‘BAD’: Brexit Affliction Denial

It’s BAD, really BAD – we’re talking about Brexit Affliction Denial.

The 2024 UK elections have witnessed the disturbing political denial of one of the most calamitous acts of national self-harm to have taken place in a western democracy. The Conservative and Labour parties competed over who can say the least about Brexit – it was the dullest 0-0 draw in the history of electoral contest. The Liberal Democrats once made re-joining the EU a key part of their electoral platform, but this time round, they kept it very low key indeed (See Note 1).

With neither the Conservatives nor Labour prepared to address the many problems created by Brexit, one wonders if anything will ever be done about them by those in power. Worse still, in not speaking out about the severe damages it caused, they have allowed those who thrive on peddling Brexit delusions to carry on with their lies and misinformation.

Perhaps politicians are unduly worried that being honest about Brexit would lose them support. But as of May 2024, just 31% of people in Great Britain thought it was right to leave the EU, while 55% thought the decision was wrong [https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/]. According to an Opinium poll taken at the end of 2023, only 10% of those surveyed believed leaving the EU had helped their personal financial situation, while 35% said it had been bad for their finances; 9% believed Brexit had been good for the NHS, and 47% were convinced it had a negative impact on the health service; and barely 7% thought it had helped keep prices low in UK shops, compared with 63% believing it was a significant factor in both the ongoing cost of living crisis and in fuelling inflation. [https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/31/has-brexit-been-a-failure-a-majority-of-brits-think-so]

And it's not just a matter of subjective views. Objective analysis of the impact of the trade barriers which Brexit has landed the UK with in doing business with the EU, shows that the UK exports were £23billion down each quarter compared with its earnings had it stayed in the EU – a GDP reduction of 4-5% [https://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-four-years-answers-two-trade-paradoxes]. According to a detailed study by Cambridge Econometrics, as a result of Brexit, the average Briton was nearly £2,000 worse off in 2023, and reduced export opportunities meant there were nearly two million fewer jobs overall in the UK [https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit].

In terms of business investment, which is vital for economic health, researchers at the Bank of England, using a large survey of business in the UK, estimated that it was 23% lower than it would have been in 2020/21 due to Brexit [https://www.economicsobservatory.com/how-has-brexit-affected-business-investment-in-the-uk]. In Scotland, it was found that as food price inflation reached a 45-year high, Brexit was responsible for a third of that rise [https://www.gov.scot/news/counting-the-impact-of-brexit/]. In Wales, the overall loss to the Welsh budget amounted to over £1billion [https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-loss-funding-wales-result-uk-governments-arrangements-replacement-eu-funding].

As for the wild claims about Brexit was needed to stop people trying to come to settle in the UK, before Brexit when the UK was part of an EU scheme which ensured unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered, there was not one case of small boat crossing to the UK with asylum seekers. After Brexit, the UK severed cooperation with the EU, and refugees desperate to get to the UK had no choice but to risk their lives to get across by sea. The numbers then grew from the low hundreds in 2018 to tens of thousands in 2023 [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/small-boats-industry-science-brexit-made-our-lives-worse].

There are some who cling to their beliefs that Brexit has enabled the UK to do things like rolling out the Covid vaccine quickly, but that was something the UK could actually have done as a member of the EU. Then there are claims about the odd trade deals the UK has made on its own without having to go through the EU, but the tiny gains these brought pale into insignificance compared with the substantial trade that had been lost with our former EU partners, and they have come with having to make considerable concessions that we would not even have to contemplate as part of the much more powerful EU negotiating bloc.

The ultimate indictment of Brexit Affliction Denial comes from the fact that across Europe, the previously vocal EU-sceptics – in France, Italy, the Netherlands, etc – have all stopped advocating pulling their country out of the union. They know how bad it is.

--

Note 1: The SNP having to only think about voters in anti-Brexit Scotland, and the Greens with a chance of winning in just a few pro-EU areas, both talked about reconnecting with the EU; while Reform (formerly known as the Brexit Party) simply doubled-down with more fabrications about the wonderful life that would come from being even more anti-Europe, anti-immigration, and anti-minorities.

What Have the Privatisers Ever Done for Us?

For decades now the Thatcherite mantra has kept going: “If you bring in the private sector, things will get so much better”. Some people still believe that. And there are politicians who, finding themselves constrained by the state of public finances, think the private sector may give them a way out. 

So for the benefit of all who pine for private sector salvation, let us recap on just what handing public money and control over to private companies has done for us.

Once the national assets we used to own have been sold off cheaply to private firms, those firms gain from the rising value of the assets in years to come, and the country is left with much depleted capital resources.

With vital services they can charge for, private firms will focus on making a profit out of us and pay billions in dividends to their shareholders; and whenever it proves difficult to make enough money, they call for support and demand billions more in subsidies from the public purse. 

When things go wrong, we can’t hold the government to account because they say it’s not a matter for them, but for the private company in charge; and the private company refuses to disclose anything on the grounds that their business activities are protected by commercial confidentiality. If we nonetheless press for public action against them, they hold us to ransom by saying that if they were not left to get on with things as they see fit, they could step away and leave us with no service at all.

For any of us who can’t pay the escalating prices they ask for, they threaten to cut off the service in question, regardless of how essential it is.

Let them … 

·      take charge of water, and they leak sewage into rivers and beaches; and where disease causing parasites are found in the water they are supposed to make safe to drink, they blame it on rising temperature.

·      take charge of our country’s information technology infrastructure, and the rolling out of a reliable fibre optic network for broadband communications is repeatedly delayed, especially in our rural (not-so-profitable for them) areas.

·      take charge of trains and buses, and services routinely run late and many routes get cut altogether.

·      take charge of energy, and they will take no notice of what people can actually afford, and leave it to the government to use public money to bail out any cost-of-living problems, while keeping them in profit.

·      take charge of schools, and they remove requirements for teaching qualifications so they can pay staff less, while they push up their own exorbitant salaries.

With PFI (private finance initiative), they build facilities which they own and we pay ever-rising rent and assorted fees to them on their terms, as we cannot afford not to have access to those facilities on which crucial public services rely.

With competitive tendering, they bid to deliver public services at a cheaper rate by reducing service quality, making people redundant, and cutting the pay of many of the remaining workers; and next time round they bid at a higher rate when the public sector team has been disbanded.

Of course, some private sector firms have helped to improve the provision of public services. But there are many cases of improvement which have not required any private sector input at all. The key to improvement is to combine effective public accountability, stakeholder challenge, and citizen involvement in quality control. The height of folly is to assume private companies will put public wellbeing above their own financial interests.

Being Unreasonable About Reason

The cult of irrationality is growing in politics and more widely across society. Many people are ready to subscribe to groundless claims and harmful policies regardless of the evidence. When contradictions and lies are pointed out to them, they shrug and persist with their views.

Why is this happening? One key factor is the erosion of a shared understanding of the role of reason in resolving arguments. At the most basic level, we recognise discussions about what are to be believed should be free and open – with the critical proviso that what is said is relevant, coherent, objectively checkable, and not abusive or intimidatory. Overlooking the need for this proviso has led to some very confused reactions. Let’s look at some of these.

First we have the ‘Anything Goes’ mantra. Everyone is ‘entitled’ to have their own views, and they are free to express those views any time, anywhere. It does not matter that they are groundless and dangerous – declaring a life-saving vaccine a deadly potion; calling an innocent man a serial killer; describing a shelter for vulnerable people as a home for nasty criminals. Any attempt to restrict the propagation of such views is then attacked as ‘censorship’ or ‘cancel culture’.

Next we have the ‘better tough than reasonable’ outlook. We don’t want understanding, we are told, just action to sort things out. Overlooking the fact that without understanding a problem, you can’t solve it, those impatient (and in some cases, incompetent) with working out what a reasoned approach should be, fall for ‘strongman’ politicians, cult leaders, charlatans who claim to speak for God, and go with whatever thoughtless actions they call for.

Then there are those who, without any sense of irony, cloak their arbitrary dogmas by invoking their own twisted brand of ‘Reason’. From the Robespierre-led extremists in the French Revolution to those who believe that their grasp of dialectical history justifies Stalinist oppression, there are people who insist that they know what Reason declares to be unquestionably true. Alas, anyone who rejects critical analysis and rebuffs objective scrutiny can hardly be considered reasonable at all.

Finally, we have the random sceptics who are convinced that there is no distinction between what is in line with or what goes against reason. Reason for them is a mirage, and no one can tell them what is or what is not reasonable. They can believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and anyone trying to point out flaws in their views would simply be dismissed as lacking any coherent basis to do so.

The antidote to all this is to remind ourselves how we get through the most basic everyday decisions – understanding options, learning from experience, seeing what happens when different choices are made, reviewing assumptions in the light of new evidence or cogent arguments put forward by others, etc. We only get by if we work through ideas in an objective and non-contradictory manner. We all implicitly reason about what we are to believe and what to do. Anyone seriously making their choices without reasonable deliberations would find themselves in all kinds of trouble – with their home, their job, their health.

We need to apply our grasp of reasonableness consistently to wider societal issues and recognise that there is an important difference between reasonable ideas that merit consideration and unreasonable claims that should be exposed as unwarranted. To learn more, here are a few suggestions: Stephen Toulmin’s Return to Reason, P. F. Strawson’s Skepticism and Naturalism, Henry Tam’s What Should Citizens Believe, and Thomas A. Spragens Jnr’s Reason and Democracy.

Morality, Education & Public Policy

The teaching of moral issues is a contentious matter. Some people think that if education neglects the development of a common moral understanding, society is in peril. Others feel strongly that morality should be left to individuals, and any collective steer would inevitably be authoritarian and unacceptable. 

On the surface, this deadlock seems unbreakable if there is no such thing as a universal moral outlook that can be legitimately imparted.  If we take a deeper look, however, we will see that explicitly or implicitly we all recognise the golden rule of reciprocity. We take it as correct to treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. We reject as wrong the behaviour of anyone who act on others in a manner they would not wish upon themselves.

This moral alignment with the ethos of reciprocity has been confirmed in research into the behaviour of young children, in anthropological studies of diverse groups of people, in game theory experiments testing the propensity towards mutual cooperation, and in everyday observations of how we all tend to welcome those who reciprocate civility and helpfulness, and think badly of those who repay courtesy and kindness with inconsiderate and selfish acts. None of this is surprising given the centrality of the golden rule in the moral teachings recorded in the most revered texts in all ancient civilisations.

Based on a concern with upholding the morality of reciprocity, it makes sense to have public policies that support its practical adoption and guard against its erosion by false notions and harmful deception. For example, consider the following types of policy:

[A] Public policy that requires and supports the teaching in all schools of moral understanding of issues such as:

·      Acting with civility and mutual respect towards one another.

·      Resolving disagreement non-violently with the help of objective evidence and coherent arguments.

·      Learning to cooperate in the exploration and pursuit of common goals.

·      Discovering how some people can suffer from circumstances beyond their control and why they would need help as we would in similar circumstances. 

[B] Public policy that disallows and sanctions against the teaching by schools or parents which inculcates beliefs, attitudes and behaviour such as:

·      Disparaging, hating, or intimidating others on the grounds of their race, religion, customs, gender, disability, poverty, appearance or any other prejudice-based factor.

·      Being supportive of those who advocate the use of force to terrorise target groups or undermine democratically elected government institutions.

·      Embracing assumptions that one can impose sexual acts on others without their consent, and blame them for objecting to such action.

·      Accepting false claims about why one should consume certain dangerous substance or refuse to receive essential medical treatment.

[C] Public policy that rules out the teaching of unfounded doctrines and dangerously misleading ideas such as:

·      “White people should be treated favourably and encouraged to live here while non-white should be frowned upon and made to feel unwelcome.”

·      “One religious denomination is correct about everything and all other denominations, sects, religions, and non-believers are unforgivably mistaken whenever they disagree with the one true faith.”

·      “Women should stay at home to look after their family, comply with their husband, and not seek equal opportunities as men.”

·      “Scientific expertise and widely peer-assessed research findings are to be dismissed whenever these run counter to what certain ideological groups with wealthy backers want to assert.”

Why would anyone object to the above types of public policy? Is type A policy not promoting the reciprocity that is needed to sustain a civil and mutually supportive society? Is type B policy not necessary to protect children and the wider community from serious harm? Is type C policy not essential to keep at bay the vilest indoctrination that would otherwise fuel arbitrary oppression?  Only those who reject reciprocity, who want to treat others in repugnant ways they would never put up with themselves, would push against these types of policy. Rather than conceding to their objections, society should confidently and resolutely develop such policies for the common good.