A Brief Metaphysics of a Pandemic

Situations of distress, panic, and outright hysteria, allow for deep insights into the human soul – into the essence of an individual character as well as the psyche of cultures and entire civilizations. It discloses moral and intellectual deficiencies and reflects civic arrangements, the political order, and constitutional designs. 

It is a sobering spectacle to watch a hedonistic civilization, exhausted and vain after decades of venerating money and material pleasures when faced with a potentially deadly virus pandemic, now consumed by trivial regard for physical survival. Almost all politicians, medical and other experts surrounding the US President and leaders in most European countries focus exclusively on survivability rates and protecting everybody at all costs. Those nations and leaders that appear to keep their societal environments open (i.e., Sweden) rectify it by referencing liberal values and the right to self-determination of citizens. Any more profound sense of understanding of why the near-total shutdown of our societies and the ubiquitous succumbing to the corona virus is highly problematic, to say the least, is missing. 

Interesting to note, though, that the much-hated President Trump, while not expressing it philosophically, in his intuitive wisdom, questions the maxim upon which the majority acts. While they want to save lives and resent opening up the country with all their might, Trump clarifies that the cure must not be worse than the disease. 

In expressing what sounds like a banal truism, he reveals philosophical wisdom, which is this: “If any collective of people set the value of personal physical survival absolute, they’ve declared moral bankruptcy and are on the path to perishment.” Indeed, we have to be willing to put our lives on the line and enter a trade-off between physical survival and maintaining our social and economic livelihoods. Undeniably, Trump understood what most don’t even dare to think.

Frank Dietrich, a fellow philosopher from the University of Düsseldorf, nailed it this way (my translation): “If the crisis continues for a long time and the economic turmoil reaches extreme proportions, we must reconsider the primacy of saving lives.”

In other words, the young and healthy, those up to retirement age whose health is not compromised by medical preconditions, have to get back to work and keep the countries and nations going. Some might fall ill, a few might even die, but we must not hide away until the last trace of the corona virus has disappeared, a vaccine came out, and nobody can get sick anymore.

Our societies have to ‘man’ up again, and we should remind ourselves of Plato’s ‘thymos,’ the ‘spiritedness,’ this ingredient of the human soul without which neither an individual nor society can survive in the long run. If we are no longer willing to risk our lives for each other, we are virtually enslaving ourselves, and we will eventually – when looking back – be ashamed of our cowardice. 

It is important not to confuse or misinterpret the outlined axiom. Of course, everything meaningful to preserve lives, and every measure to protect people, must be welcome. However, the preservation of life and physical survivability must not develop into an absolute. 

If not for anything, we should at least seize the opportunity this crisis offers to rediscover the dignity that human existence is more than self-preservation at all costs and fear of death. Ultimately, every one of us – above all, our political leaders and representatives – will be judged against this backdrop of self-respect and esteem.

  

It is time to crawl out from underneath our shelters and sanctuaries and face life again.

El Paso and Dayton Mass Shootings - The Foolish Blame Game Continues

As I have demonstrated in my blogs throughout the years, social and political problems require remedy at the bottom of the issues. Cosmetic touches and surface modifications might help short-term but lead to further deterioration down the road. 

The two carnages at El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio - both of which took place within 24 hours last weekend - and the expected short-sighted and factually flawed statements in the wake of it make it a moral duty to speak up. 

 

 I outlined the notions surrounding private gun ownership, gun violence, and 2nd Amendment issues in the U.S. in several blog entries. For the sad occasion of the San Bernadino massacre of December 2, 2015, see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html; on the Florida High School shooting of February 14, 2018, go to https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2018/03/amend-second-amendment.html. Aside from providing the normative criteria for private citizens' rights to bear arms in any open society, I addressed the particular challenges the U.S. faces concerning that issue. 

The opposing parties on the issue are, for the most part, mistaken and have been barking up the wrong tree, as I will show further down. To lay the proper foundation for what follows, a citation from the 2018 essay above 'Amend the Second Amendment: "A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks for that matter – are used."

 

Only instilling adequate regard for human life through proper socialization and education of young people can help overcome the potential pathological triggers for mass-shootings and murder sprees. To name a few of these triggers: self-indulgence, apathetic egotism, seemingly uncontrollable hatred, self-hatred, and lack of desensitization as to the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies. 

The societal deficits as to this truly human dimension of the phenomenon are ubiquitous and virtually unmissable to the conscientious observer. Is this the inevitable price any society has to pay that praises lawlessness, celebrates moral relativism, surrenders the notions of truth and justice to the dictates of political correctness? The answer to this question seems to be as sure as the observation of the phenomenon is evident. 

 

We arrived at the point where the issue of gun control enters the picture. As explained in more detail (again https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html), legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership, within clearly prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the State's monopoly of force. Hence, both the monopoly of arms in conjunction with private gun ownership provides a synthesis for a nation's most efficient internal safety and security.

To overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the law's self-defense component would appear conducive. Such clarification would also explain why no privately owned arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes are needed. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures, i.e., voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. We know from the Florida incident that if law enforcement had followed through on that latter idea, the event most likely could have been prevented. 

About this aspect, the gun lobbyists and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are undoubtedly wrong. In contrast, the Democrats and many others who demand a ban on military-style assault weapons are right. It should never happen in an open society that somebody commits a mass murder-shooting with a legally acquired AK-47. Such kinds of weapons have nothing lost in private hands. However, how to grant interested people access to handling and shooting such weapons in the controlled environment of gun and shooting clubs I have explained in the essay 'Amend the Second Amendment' (see link above). I also explained why the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies to the same degree it did at the time of the inception of the republic.

The currently ongoing blame game in U.S. domestic politics is ridiculous. Neither can President Trump's rhetoric nor existent gun-laws be blamed for the mass shootings. The dubious psychological motivations for individuals to carry out these senseless acts of mass violence owe to the extremely polarized atmosphere of the domestic debate on crucial issues (such as immigration, the rule of law, etc.) and the sheer impossibility of civilized dialogue in an environment of fake news and hateful anti-Trumpism. As violence occurs ever more frequently at demonstrations and political rallies and the bearers of opposing views get bashed and destroyed, genuinely unhinged individuals seem to carry it to the extremes of mass shootings on rare occasions. 

The fact that citizens can privately own military-style assault weapons legally in this country undoubtedly and positively contributes to the magnitude of those killings - although it doesn't cause them - and lays open a flaw in the interpretation and enforcement of the Second Amendment. 

This here approach should allow politicians and lawmakers to find common ground on this critical issue. I have to underscore again that a modification of constitutions and constitutional amendments is possible. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, standard specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which people may privately own certain types of guns.

What the Hell is Wrong with President Trump and His Foreign Policy?

Without a doubt, bombing the airfield in Syria and dropping the giant bomb on the I.S. stronghold in Afghanistan demonstrates to the world that with the new President in charge, the game has changed. Trump showed that he cannot be messed with and is determined to lead and to take action.

However, in a time of cyber manipulation, with mainstream media operating as ideological propaganda tools and politics deteriorating into a madhouse of hateful obstructionism and partisan malice, reality can only be grasped by sound intuition good judgment in combination with inclusive and critical reflection. 

The so-called facts presented by news outlets, intelligence services, and congressional investigative boards too often make up facts, intentionally distort, and tailor them to political expediency. Utilitarian convenience has created a climate that condones lying and cheating, the shirking of accountability, and the denunciation and demonization of political opponents, including their opinions. Certain media outlets, the CIA, the FBI, have all lost their credibility. Nothing they present can be taken cum grano salis anymore. The primary requirement for professionally operating government organizations - political impartiality and neutrality - is no longer a given. No doubt, in many respects, the political culture in the U.S. has deteriorated to alarming lows. 

In light of all this, one has to ask who is advising President Trump and what happened to Trump's pragmatic judgment? Rhetorical excellence is, for the most part, natural talent, and Trump's plain and straightforward language might serve him well in certain respects. But how is it possible that a sitting president calls the President of another country an animal and a butcher? Somebody should advise Mr. Trump that if he makes such statements, they ought to be put in a conditional form: "If President Assad has personally ordered the gas attack, we would certainly have to consider him to be a merciless butcher, a vile individual?" 

Yet, there is no evidence that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. There is not even clear evidence that Syrian government troops used those weapons. Instead, every reasonable calculus points to the fact that the rebels exploited an air attack by a Syrian government fighter jet to release chemical substances themselves to blame the government and, at the eleventh hour, reverse the fortunes of war. Everybody knew that the government forces, with Russian support, were winning and pushing the insurgents back. Everybody knew that it would be outright insane and counterproductive for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons at this point. Not only would it not serve any meaningful purpose as conventional warfare was doing the job, but it would also turn the public opinion against the government. Who would order such a stupid move, even at the chance that the public would blame the use of chemical weapons on the rebels? 

Undoubtedly, the ideas of neoconservative hawks, dangerous madmen like John McCain or Lindsay Graham, most likely pushed by lobbyists of the military-industrial complex, have somehow found their way into the White House and have clouded the judgment of advisers and the President himself. When an American Secretary of State shows up in Russia and, as far as the government of Syria and its support by Russia is concerned, stipulates an ultimatum of virtually unconditional surrender, he leaves the Russian counterparts no room for negotiations. Moreover, he also compromised the principles of diplomatic conduct.

Aside from demonstrating to the world that President Trump is a strong leader, the reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been an unjustifiable one, strategically as well as morally. 

One of the Pax Americana's pernicious errors attempted since the end of the Cold War was the disregard for international players' legitimate strategic interests. While other global players might pretend to bow in the face of the U.S.'s overwhelming military might, it certainly does not help establish a just and balanced world order. It only accomplishes further destabilization and weakening of international relations and increases the animosity toward the United States in many parts of the world. 

Trump raised hope and was elected not the least for the essential turnaround in U.S. foreign affairs policy after the dreadful Obama years. With Trumps premature and gullible reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, his excessive interpretation of U.S. national security interests, and his further alienation of Russia, he is about to betray the expectations for the urgently needed change in U.S. foreign policy along the lines of stopping regime change and nation-building around the world. Instead, what he should pursue is cooperation with Russia and China and the partners in Europe and NATO to fight the real threat – radical Islam and its affiliated terrorist organizations. 

At this juncture of events and less than three months into Mr. Trump's presidency, the only hope remains that the President and his advisers and foreign affairs counselors come to their senses. Mr. Trump must live up to his campaign promises and disentangle the U.S. from the endless involvements in unjust wars in the Middle East, stop regime change interventions, and overcome the Russophobe stance in U.S. foreign affairs.