Tweet
Humans are complex-beings. Independent of which race, religion, region, etc. do they belong to, they have got both the capacities of discard as well as harmonous co-existance in them. To say that humans can live with each other in perfect harmony just on the basis of their moral/ethical character and sense is absolutely wrong as like saying that a given set of humans can be in eternal conflict with each other is incorrect.
In fact the whole discipline of human intellectual endeavour called social sciences is dedicated to this question e.g., the first question that the study of law addresses (and the branch of law that explores this question is called Philosophy of Law) is, do humans really need laws, precepts, rules, institutions, etc. to live in peace in a society and not violate each others' rights or can they live togethor merely by their moral sense. Political Science investigates questions like who is to hold how much authority over the societal affair, how should that authority be mandated, what kind of institutional structure is needed for long-term stablility, and what type of contract should bind individuals to institutions. International law deals with how should nations and groups deal with each other, etc. to live peacefully with each other.
The fundamental aim of all the above is to find practical and implementable frameworks of formal works, activities, strategies, policies, etc. to reduce the chances of conflict, to enhance the opportunities of negotiation, and to promote stability and peace between people and groups. So far, experience has shown us, no amount of optimism about correct moral behaviour in humans can guaranntee peace and what are needed, are formal systems togethor with coercive tools (police, military, etc.) to make humans respect each others' rights.
But we, people living in the conflict zones, have a dilemma to face i.e., as we stand up for our rights and make a demand for a fair and just system, someone props up and blames us for sowing discard.
Usually, such people fall into three categories; commoners who have very narrow and local view of the current scheme of things and are concerned mostly with their daily lives not to mention also being victims of vested propaganda to tell them they should be contented with their present state and status; second category comprises forces of the status-quo who consider all type of discard a threat to their status; and the third category is Supra-humanists and Militant moralists, who romantically believe, social and political issues can be resolved through a higher moral sense in humans.
I have question to ask from such Supra-humanists, militant-moralists? How can pure morality alone resolve complex issues e.g., inter-group relations? Is pure morality, ultra-humanism possible? And how is supra-humanism sustainable keeping in view the inevitable conflict over limited resources?
I will go further and ask the most relevant question i.e., do the people and groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan need a fair and just law and a just political system / social contract or would just a higher moral sense do the job? How can this moral sense be injected in people?
In fact the whole discipline of human intellectual endeavour called social sciences is dedicated to this question e.g., the first question that the study of law addresses (and the branch of law that explores this question is called Philosophy of Law) is, do humans really need laws, precepts, rules, institutions, etc. to live in peace in a society and not violate each others' rights or can they live togethor merely by their moral sense. Political Science investigates questions like who is to hold how much authority over the societal affair, how should that authority be mandated, what kind of institutional structure is needed for long-term stablility, and what type of contract should bind individuals to institutions. International law deals with how should nations and groups deal with each other, etc. to live peacefully with each other.
The fundamental aim of all the above is to find practical and implementable frameworks of formal works, activities, strategies, policies, etc. to reduce the chances of conflict, to enhance the opportunities of negotiation, and to promote stability and peace between people and groups. So far, experience has shown us, no amount of optimism about correct moral behaviour in humans can guaranntee peace and what are needed, are formal systems togethor with coercive tools (police, military, etc.) to make humans respect each others' rights.
But we, people living in the conflict zones, have a dilemma to face i.e., as we stand up for our rights and make a demand for a fair and just system, someone props up and blames us for sowing discard.
Usually, such people fall into three categories; commoners who have very narrow and local view of the current scheme of things and are concerned mostly with their daily lives not to mention also being victims of vested propaganda to tell them they should be contented with their present state and status; second category comprises forces of the status-quo who consider all type of discard a threat to their status; and the third category is Supra-humanists and Militant moralists, who romantically believe, social and political issues can be resolved through a higher moral sense in humans.
I have question to ask from such Supra-humanists, militant-moralists? How can pure morality alone resolve complex issues e.g., inter-group relations? Is pure morality, ultra-humanism possible? And how is supra-humanism sustainable keeping in view the inevitable conflict over limited resources?
I will go further and ask the most relevant question i.e., do the people and groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan need a fair and just law and a just political system / social contract or would just a higher moral sense do the job? How can this moral sense be injected in people?