This was what Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz had to comment about the Inter-Faith Council (IFC) which could not be given any legitimacy because of the absence of the Muslim representation in the council .Nazri gave the example of himself. "I have 70% Muslim in my constituency who are bound to register their unhappiness at the ballot box. If my constituents don't want the IFC, what can I do?" "What can I do," Nazri asked. "Don't blame me and don't blame ministers. Blame the voters."
You can read more of this in my earlier article here.
Let me share this story with you.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't; Immorality is unavoidable.
A soldier, Abraham, was about to do a terrible thing. He had been ordered by the General to first rape and then murder a prisoner, whom he knew was just an innocent civilian from the wrong ethnic background. There was no doubt in his mind that this would be a gross injustice - a war crime, in fact.
Yet quickly thinking it over he felt he had no choice but to go ahead. If he obeyed the order, he could make the ordeal as bearable as possible for the victim, making sure she suffered no more than was necessary. If he did not obey the order, he himself would be shot and the prisoner would still be violated and killed, but probably more violently. It was better for everyone if he went ahead.
His reasoning seemed clear enough, but of course it gave him no peace of mind. How could it be that he was both going to do the best he could in the circumstances and also a terrible wrong?
"If I don't do it somebody else will" is generally speaking a weak justification for wrongdoing.This is a thought experiment and we control the variables. We had to confront the dilemma head on, not thinking our way around it.
What do you say?
(Adapted from: Julian Baggini; When No One Wins, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, PLUME, 2005).
You can read more of this in my earlier article here.
Let me share this story with you.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't; Immorality is unavoidable.
A soldier, Abraham, was about to do a terrible thing. He had been ordered by the General to first rape and then murder a prisoner, whom he knew was just an innocent civilian from the wrong ethnic background. There was no doubt in his mind that this would be a gross injustice - a war crime, in fact.
Yet quickly thinking it over he felt he had no choice but to go ahead. If he obeyed the order, he could make the ordeal as bearable as possible for the victim, making sure she suffered no more than was necessary. If he did not obey the order, he himself would be shot and the prisoner would still be violated and killed, but probably more violently. It was better for everyone if he went ahead.
His reasoning seemed clear enough, but of course it gave him no peace of mind. How could it be that he was both going to do the best he could in the circumstances and also a terrible wrong?
"If I don't do it somebody else will" is generally speaking a weak justification for wrongdoing.This is a thought experiment and we control the variables. We had to confront the dilemma head on, not thinking our way around it.
What do you say?
(Adapted from: Julian Baggini; When No One Wins, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, PLUME, 2005).
3 comments:
"If my constituents don't want the IFC, what can I do?"
to a certain extent, the politician must have to moral courage to generate the political will among the rakyat the best policies for them.
in the case of the IFC, yes his constituents may not want it, it does not mean that he can try to promote it if he feels it is right. changing his 'beliefs' to effectively stay in power instead of promoting ideas for the progress of the the country is unacceptable.
malaysian politicians should grown backbones and priciples.
when will the moral decay stoP?
we elect the govt we deserve.
may God save the PM and the rakyat.
re the war crime. i believe at some point, the soldier should come to his senses. but it would take great courage. i would not condemn him for his action for in a military environment, he is expected to obey his orders in the name of some greater good. my personal stand is if such orders contravenes personal belief or even social norms of right and wrong, the soldier has a right to protest and refuse the action. however, he would have to face the consequences of disobedience. will i be able to do it under such conditions? we may only find out if i am put under them. :D
Simple solution to Nazri's remarks. Analysis....what can he do? When his constituents comprise 70pc Malays. The answer is: Nazri is not an effective leader as he is just a "follower". So why re-elect him at the next GE!! Dump him!
Rape the prisoner, kill the general.
Maybe that should do.
Post a Comment