A Case Study
[All statements in italics have been revised.]
I have always wondered about people’s lack of interest in world politics. Politics I am drawn to believe, offer the most realistic medium to resolve the greater moral issues that concern mankind.
As an example, consider the issue of Kashmir. Whom does Kashmir really belong to – India or Pakistan?* The question does not offer an easy answer.
Geographically speaking, Kashmir’s location makes it an equally favorable candidate for both countries. Furthermore, both Hindus and Muslims have had an equal share in promoting Kashmiriyat. Early references to Kashmir can be found in the Hindu epic of the Mahabharata, with a gradual shift towards Islam after the advent of Sufism, and more emphatically, when it was under Mughal rule. Thus, as a confluence center for both countries (in terms of location, religion, and historical significance), the Kashmir issue is subject to intense debate.
In Pakistan’s favor, for reasons of the ‘takeover’ of Junagadh by India, and a certain willingness of the Kashmiri’s of 1947 to be part of the Islamic state (debatable), Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan. The story goes that the then Hindu king’s inability to preempt the attack of the Pashtuns armed by the Army from across the border with Pakistan, and a degree of prodding by Indian politicians, resulted in Kashmir being acceded to India.
What stands in India’s favor then? I am drawn to believe that this question finds relevance in India particularly today. Today, many Kashmiri’s prefer to associate them selves with India (debated). At one point of time the possibility of identifying Kashmir as a separate country appealed to me. However, that seems like a rather childish view now. For one, it would seem as if a mother were shunning away her child, after so many years of fighting for her (2 gruesome wars), and loving her, against all odds. For another, the threat of terrorism would increase by leaps and bounds.
You might ask, what do I care what happened or happens now?
Consider this:
Morality & ethics form the basis of who we are. In politics, these (i.e. morality and ethics) are evaluated primarily by the Doctrine of Consequentialism**. Briefly, this means that a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence. However, this doctrine presumes that consequences can be compared and quantified. In the case of Kashmir (and other such political issues), this is not easy to assess.
The Indian Prime Minister throws light into this moral dilemma. He advocates negative utilitarianism (a division of the Doctrine of Consequentialism), in contrast to the classical utilitarian approach of promoting happiness.
The basic principle of Negative Utilitarianism is that the best action in any circumstance is not the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness over unhappiness (as in classic "quantifiable" utilitarianism), but one which produces the least amount of overall unhappiness. In such a case, the overall level of harm is simply reduced.
Singh’s suggestion to provide greater autonomy to Kashmir isn’t going to make everyone happy, but it appears to be the best quick-fix solution to the problems brewing in that region. His assessment doesn’t necessarily come from extensive knowledge of Kashmir itself, but fundamentally on raising and resolving complex moral issues that affect mankind in general.
The example above is only a very crude, simplified illustration of a “moral paradigm”, among the several others that politics offer us. Politics can thus play a powerful role in determining who we are, and who we become based on our own assessment of these models.
What do I care? Well in essence, you must care, at some level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The role of The People’s Republic of China in its claim of the disputed territory has been avoided.
**Morality and ethics are broadly based on three systems of philosophy:
1. The Doctrine of Consequentialism,
2. The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, and
3. The Doctrine of Double Effect
Note: Consequentialism in the realm of Politics must find some agreement with Deontological theories wherever possible(i.e. the action itself must be considered moral).
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_relations ; Indo - Pakistani relations
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir; Kashmir
3. http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?691606 ; Most Kashmiris want to stay with India : Farooq
4. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article562790.ece ; Give peace a chance, Manmohan tells Kashmiris
5. Philosophy: the basics,Page 53; Nigel Warburton
6.http://www.mit.edu/~lyoung/Site/Publications_files/Cushman,%20Young,%20Greene.doc ; Our multi-system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view ; Fiery Cushman, Liane Young, and Joshua D. Greene
7.http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists/ ; The idea that consequentialism in Politics is seen through the lens of Deontology, was drawn from this article.
[All statements in italics have been revised.]
I have always wondered about people’s lack of interest in world politics. Politics I am drawn to believe, offer the most realistic medium to resolve the greater moral issues that concern mankind.
As an example, consider the issue of Kashmir. Whom does Kashmir really belong to – India or Pakistan?* The question does not offer an easy answer.
Geographically speaking, Kashmir’s location makes it an equally favorable candidate for both countries. Furthermore, both Hindus and Muslims have had an equal share in promoting Kashmiriyat. Early references to Kashmir can be found in the Hindu epic of the Mahabharata, with a gradual shift towards Islam after the advent of Sufism, and more emphatically, when it was under Mughal rule. Thus, as a confluence center for both countries (in terms of location, religion, and historical significance), the Kashmir issue is subject to intense debate.
In Pakistan’s favor, for reasons of the ‘takeover’ of Junagadh by India, and a certain willingness of the Kashmiri’s of 1947 to be part of the Islamic state (debatable), Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan. The story goes that the then Hindu king’s inability to preempt the attack of the Pashtuns armed by the Army from across the border with Pakistan, and a degree of prodding by Indian politicians, resulted in Kashmir being acceded to India.
What stands in India’s favor then? I am drawn to believe that this question finds relevance in India particularly today. Today, many Kashmiri’s prefer to associate them selves with India (debated). At one point of time the possibility of identifying Kashmir as a separate country appealed to me. However, that seems like a rather childish view now. For one, it would seem as if a mother were shunning away her child, after so many years of fighting for her (2 gruesome wars), and loving her, against all odds. For another, the threat of terrorism would increase by leaps and bounds.
You might ask, what do I care what happened or happens now?
Consider this:
Morality & ethics form the basis of who we are. In politics, these (i.e. morality and ethics) are evaluated primarily by the Doctrine of Consequentialism**. Briefly, this means that a morally right action is one that produces a good consequence. However, this doctrine presumes that consequences can be compared and quantified. In the case of Kashmir (and other such political issues), this is not easy to assess.
The Indian Prime Minister throws light into this moral dilemma. He advocates negative utilitarianism (a division of the Doctrine of Consequentialism), in contrast to the classical utilitarian approach of promoting happiness.
The basic principle of Negative Utilitarianism is that the best action in any circumstance is not the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness over unhappiness (as in classic "quantifiable" utilitarianism), but one which produces the least amount of overall unhappiness. In such a case, the overall level of harm is simply reduced.
Singh’s suggestion to provide greater autonomy to Kashmir isn’t going to make everyone happy, but it appears to be the best quick-fix solution to the problems brewing in that region. His assessment doesn’t necessarily come from extensive knowledge of Kashmir itself, but fundamentally on raising and resolving complex moral issues that affect mankind in general.
The example above is only a very crude, simplified illustration of a “moral paradigm”, among the several others that politics offer us. Politics can thus play a powerful role in determining who we are, and who we become based on our own assessment of these models.
What do I care? Well in essence, you must care, at some level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The role of The People’s Republic of China in its claim of the disputed territory has been avoided.
**Morality and ethics are broadly based on three systems of philosophy:
1. The Doctrine of Consequentialism,
2. The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, and
3. The Doctrine of Double Effect
Note: Consequentialism in the realm of Politics must find some agreement with Deontological theories wherever possible(i.e. the action itself must be considered moral).
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_relations ; Indo - Pakistani relations
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir; Kashmir
3. http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?691606 ; Most Kashmiris want to stay with India : Farooq
4. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article562790.ece ; Give peace a chance, Manmohan tells Kashmiris
5. Philosophy: the basics,Page 53; Nigel Warburton
6.http://www.mit.edu/~lyoung/Site/Publications_files/Cushman,%20Young,%20Greene.doc ; Our multi-system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view ; Fiery Cushman, Liane Young, and Joshua D. Greene
7.http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists/ ; The idea that consequentialism in Politics is seen through the lens of Deontology, was drawn from this article.
Comments
i think u r making yur way to politics in near future :) a