Blame in Saudi Arabia - Essay Example

Today’s and Period Assignment Blame Introduction Blame is something that in recent years I have come to practice quite often. Iwas born in Saudi Arabia. Although alien and distressful to many, yet, I have always perceived it as home. Luckily I had the great fortune of being born in, what is considered to be part of a liberal and open minded family, in Saudi Arabia. My parents, although Muslims that took pride in their belief’s didn’t refuse themselves from experiencing different parts of “western culture” e.g. they drink occasionally, studied in America. That being said my parents wanted me to experience the world as they did. For me I saw nothing odd about where I went to school in Saudi Arabia. I thought it was normal that religion was considered an essential part of ones life. Although I myself have never become religious I had always perceived Islam to be a religion that preached good things and how to live a respectful life. I saw the “imams” (equivalent of a priest) to be wise and upstanding members of society that had humanities best interests at heart. Some of the most admirable and dedicated people I know are Muslims. My whole life I was lead to believe that I was part of a proud and admirable culture; a culture that held moral values and respected them-selves like no other. However that would soon come to change. On 9/11/2001, I was watching T.V in my living room when my dad barged in to switch the channel to CNN. He was visibly aggravated in what he began to witness; the falling of the twin towers in New York. My father has a dual citizenship, he is an American and a Saudi who has strong ties to both nations as he had worked and lived in both Countries for a Considerable amount of time. To add to the horrible News, the perpetrators of the Hijacked planes were Saudi citizens. I didn’t fully understand the future implications of the hijackers being Saudi until I left to go study abroad. Unfortunately in 2006, when I left Saudi to go study in England I did feel a sense of enmity towards Muslims. I have been personally discriminated against because of my ethnic background. For example, excessive questioning at airports, random ethnic insults, bias favoritism and being discriminated against because of the Arab name that I have! This I have come to realize was the repercussions of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After that day people associated terrorism with the word Islam and the Arab world. Who the Blame Lies With? Whenever I now feel that I’m experiencing a sense of discrimination, I firstly blame the terrorists for their horrible actions that should never have been done let alone in the name of Islam. I then blame the people who are ignorant enough to think that every Muslim is a terrorist. Finally I blame myself for letting something that has nothing to do with me affect me. Consequentialist Theory The consequentialist theory holds that the moral rightness or ethicality of the act can only be determined by the actual consequences that the act yields (Armstrong). Also, the rules applicable to the acts of same kind or motivation behind the act, also determine the moral rightness of the act (Armstrong). If the consequences are good for the people than the act is also good (Washington). Based on the consequentialist theory, the terrorist’s actions held no moral rightness or ethicality as their acts directly resulted in the killing of thousands of people and indirectly it resulted in creating an atmosphere of fear for the Americans, and discrimination for the people of same ethnic and geographical background. Although all Muslims, be they devout or not, are not responsible for such actions and do not hold such enmity against Americans, yet, the actions of the terrorists resulted in reflecting upon the whole Muslim community. Which gives rise to the blame that if the actions of the terrorists were not morally right so are the actions of the people who discriminate against the Muslims or the Arabs are wrong; as being part of a learned civilization they should realize that not all Muslims are terrorists. Arab countries have always had positive relations with America and a few people should not be allowed to demolish those relations. The discrimination that we Arabs suffer at the hands of the Americans inflicts deep psychological harm and gives rise to feelings of hatred that did not exist before, thus, creating a deadly cycle of hate and blame, making their actions morally wrong. Finally, I blame myself for letting myself be influenced with events of a decade past and letting such events inflict negative impacts upon my life. The consequences of such a blame can only result in making me feel bad about the community I live in. My parents have lived here since way back and never have such attitudes been an issue, it is just a result of the attack and will diminish with time. Kant’s Theory Kant’s Theory implies that morality is determined by the actions and their nature and not the goals or the consequences achieved (Kay). The actions should be so that their maxim should be able to become universalized (Kay). People and humanity should be the ultimate goal and not a means to reach that goal (Kay). Contradiction in conception The contradiction in conception test can be used to check whether the maxim used either by the terrorist or the people of America can be universalized. The maxim ‘if you disagree with the actions of the one individual, the whole ethnic community should be held responsible’ will never work. As the world is daily faced by deadly bombings and acts of terrorism, but people don’t end up hating the whole ethnic communities for it. As if such were the case than the world would be full of only hatred and it shows that hatred towards the whole community for the actions of one cannot be practices universally as it will lose exclusivity and individuality. Contradiction in Will Test Applying the contradiction in Will test to the Maxim, ‘the terrorists were Muslims, hence all Muslims are to be hated’, implies that if the whole world acts on this maxim than the discrimination will spring forth after any terrorist act, be it carried by a Muslim or a member of some other ethnic background. Kant believes that such a law of non-beneficence can be conceived but people would not prefer to live in such a world of hatred and self-reliance (WLU). Will a person be able to hate his own family and community if someone of their own country committed an act of terrorism? The Humanity-As-An-End Formula The Humanity as an end formula implies that any rational person sets goals for the self and then pursues them (WLU). It hovers on the capacity of the human being autonomous and responsible for his own actions (WLU). The humanity formula can be applied to both the terrorists and the discriminating Americans. The terrorists can be viewed as autonomous in their decision of carrying out the attacks and had their own motivations. May be they thought that they were making the world a better place by their actions; whereas, both the discriminating Americans and the Muslim terrorists, cannot be considered representing the whole communities. May be the discriminating Americans think that by their attitude they are making the culprits pa. Others should not be treated as an instrument of other’s will (WLU). Counterargument Under the consequentialist theory the actions of the terrorists were morally wrong as they were responsible for killing thousands of people and incurring fear into the hearts of the American people. Their actions had no moral rightness as they killed so many people and wanted to hurt a nation that believes in peace and is risking its own security by fighting wars all over the world to maintain peace. May be the Terrorists thought they were making their people safe but that does not mean that they can do that by killing innocent people, as they did in America. The actions bore no good consequences for humanity and thus have no morality (Armstrong). The terrorists were identified as Muslims and belonged to Arabia, and wanted to harm America. All Muslims think on the same lines as the terrorists, as the terrorists were given refuge by a Muslim nation, Afghanistan. All Muslims are a part of it, some did the act while others supported it indirectly by giving support to the terrorists, the consequences of which were also the death of their own people and more terrorist attacks. Thus, all Muslims are to be blamed for what happened on 9/11. According to Kant’s contradiction in conception test, if the whole world starts acting on The maxim that to make the people safe, innocent people need to be killed; cannot be universalized as in such a world where everyone from the micro to macro level takes the same approach, the world will end in complete destruction. There is a contradiction in conception of the law to kill innocents to make my nation safe. The terrorists took this approach because it would only work in a world where peace is cherished but where a world is already in chaos the approach of killing innocent people would not work (WLU). According to the contradiction in will test, the Maxim, ‘To love my nation, I will hate all others’, cannot be practiced rationally. Although according to Kant it can be conceived but will not be preferred by the people as a norm (WLU). America is a diverse community and comprises of many ethnic backgrounds, if such were the approach taken by all the people than the terrorists would also be justified in their approach towards killing innocents, like innocent people are being discriminated against. Conclusion No-one ever won a blame game. But, the argument of the people of Arabia being discriminated against, surely weighs heavy on the argument that since a couple of Muslims did what they did, and a couple more supported them, so the one billion are responsible for it. What happened was done by a group of devout religious people and holding people of mediocre religious views responsible for it is not morally correct. If the Muslim terrorists killed innocent people than many innocent lives have also been lost during the search for the terrorists, but that does not mean that all American nation should be held responsible for it. The behavior of both the terrorists and the discriminating Americans is unethical and two wrongs don’t make a right. Judging based on wither the consequentialist or Kant’s theory, both the actions and their consequences are unethical and morally incorrect. Works Cited Armstrong, W. S. “Consequentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008. Web. 29 April 2013 . Johnson, R. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013. Web. 29 April 2013 < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/> Kay, C. D. “Notes on Deontology.” Wofford. Wofford, 1997. Web. 29 April 2013. Web. 29 April 2013 Washington. “Consequentialist Ethical Theories.” Washington. Washington, 2013. Web. 29 April 2013 WLU. “Deontological Theories.” WLU. WLU, 2011. Web. 29 April 2013 < http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ethics/Ethics-_Lecture5.htm> Read More