Last days we've had a hell of a lot of work at the office, and I'm not very aware of what's going on around the world, but I do have read about the fact that in Egypt there was a military coup that removed the president (or prime minister, or whatever was his title) and put another guy in charge, to prepare new elections.
Since the guy who was in charge before was proposing some changes to make Egypt law follow islamist, I believe that lots of people and reporters from the right approved this action. Meanwhile, I've heard some people from the left (not many people were talking about it but I've heard some) saying that the guy had been elected with a democratic vote, and therefore removing him with a military coup is bad for the democracy.
In this case, I find myself agreeing with anyone thinking that this was a good thing. First of all, violence against the people of a country is always bad, and therefore if the army starts killing pacific islamist supporters of the ex-president, that is clearly bad. However, the problem here was that the ex-president tried to made laws that would turn Egypt into another Saudi Arabia, another Yemen....
Basically, I believe that religion and politics should never ever be together. One thing is how a country is governed, and another thing is what you may or may not believe when it come to religion, which I believe can be categorised as "Morals". I think I read some time ago about the difference between "Moral" and "Ethical". I'm still unclear about the differences in some specific cases, but I believe that an ethical behaviour tries to be fair with everybody and tries to give everybody as much freedom as possible without denying freedom to someone else. By difference, a moral behaviour tries to establish a number of things that are considered right and wrong, and then delimitate the freedom of the people based on these categories.
The most clear and easy example would be the topic of marriage. Marriages that go against ethical principles, in my opinion, are done between parts where one of them does not want or cannot have their saying while getting married. For example, the famous argument of marrying dogs would be unethical, because dogs cannot express their opinion on the matter. The same happens with arranged marriages, if families force a marriage, this is unethical. Any other marriage done between two adult people that are consensual and wanted to do so are ethical. Meanwhile, if we use moral to decide what is a correct marriage, we may get to the conclusion that the only possible marriage is between a man and a woman, or that forcing a daughter to marry a man is morally correct.
I am of the opinion that all laws should try to be as ethical as possible. Governments actions should also be as ethical as possible. And I believe that people, as a whole, should not have anything to say about it. Let me clarify that....
In Egypt, the guy who got elected wanted to use the Islamic law as the basis of the laws. Islamic law, as any religious-based law, uses morals. Some things are moral, some things are immoral, and the immoral ones are legally punished. I believe this is wrong. However, you may say that it was something democratically chosen by the people, right? Well, first thing here is that, even with lots of supporters, I believe that the percentage of people that voted for this guy was around 25%. It may be more than any other option, but this still leaves 75% out.
But even ignoring that....by applying a moral code of laws, you're forcing your morals into lots of people that may not share them and may not agree with them. Even if a huge majority, 90% wanted this, there's that 10% of people who basically were forced to "convert" to these unshared morals. Therefore, I believe this is clearly wrong and should not be done. Instead, if you make ethical laws, everybody keeps their morals. Then, if 90% of the people have certain morals, they can still apply these morals with themselves, and avoid immoral things. They're free to do so, while leaving the people with different morals free to act differently. Ethics gives you freedom, even the freedom to have the morals you want.
Therefore, whatever the votes, whatever the support, the guy who got elected was doing something wrong in my opinion. Sometimes it may be hard to differentiate between something ethical and something moral, but basing all your laws on religion is quite clear a moral thing. Religion is not the only thing that can add morals to laws, though, and one needs to be always careful and try to stay on ethical grounds when making rules for everybody.
I would add a comment about democracy. Democracy is not voting every 4-5 years and letting the elected government do as they please. Democracy is not governing for your supporters only. Democracy is not denying rights, even when a majority of people actually wants to deny those rights. True democracy is to let everybody have a voice, an opinion. And true democracy is deciding all together what to do next, hearing at least every side of an opinion, and letting each side influence the outcome, while at the same time never imposing subjective things even when a majority would like to do so. I don't believe it is democratic to, for example, ban dancing, even if a majority of people agrees. If the action is not limiting another's person freedom (basically, not hurting anyone), even a majority of people should have nothing to say about it.
When this does not happen, it doesn't matter how it is done, but the government needs to be kicked out (and kicked hard).
And kicking out the government is always going to be a good action in this case.
Since the guy who was in charge before was proposing some changes to make Egypt law follow islamist, I believe that lots of people and reporters from the right approved this action. Meanwhile, I've heard some people from the left (not many people were talking about it but I've heard some) saying that the guy had been elected with a democratic vote, and therefore removing him with a military coup is bad for the democracy.
In this case, I find myself agreeing with anyone thinking that this was a good thing. First of all, violence against the people of a country is always bad, and therefore if the army starts killing pacific islamist supporters of the ex-president, that is clearly bad. However, the problem here was that the ex-president tried to made laws that would turn Egypt into another Saudi Arabia, another Yemen....
Basically, I believe that religion and politics should never ever be together. One thing is how a country is governed, and another thing is what you may or may not believe when it come to religion, which I believe can be categorised as "Morals". I think I read some time ago about the difference between "Moral" and "Ethical". I'm still unclear about the differences in some specific cases, but I believe that an ethical behaviour tries to be fair with everybody and tries to give everybody as much freedom as possible without denying freedom to someone else. By difference, a moral behaviour tries to establish a number of things that are considered right and wrong, and then delimitate the freedom of the people based on these categories.
The most clear and easy example would be the topic of marriage. Marriages that go against ethical principles, in my opinion, are done between parts where one of them does not want or cannot have their saying while getting married. For example, the famous argument of marrying dogs would be unethical, because dogs cannot express their opinion on the matter. The same happens with arranged marriages, if families force a marriage, this is unethical. Any other marriage done between two adult people that are consensual and wanted to do so are ethical. Meanwhile, if we use moral to decide what is a correct marriage, we may get to the conclusion that the only possible marriage is between a man and a woman, or that forcing a daughter to marry a man is morally correct.
I am of the opinion that all laws should try to be as ethical as possible. Governments actions should also be as ethical as possible. And I believe that people, as a whole, should not have anything to say about it. Let me clarify that....
In Egypt, the guy who got elected wanted to use the Islamic law as the basis of the laws. Islamic law, as any religious-based law, uses morals. Some things are moral, some things are immoral, and the immoral ones are legally punished. I believe this is wrong. However, you may say that it was something democratically chosen by the people, right? Well, first thing here is that, even with lots of supporters, I believe that the percentage of people that voted for this guy was around 25%. It may be more than any other option, but this still leaves 75% out.
But even ignoring that....by applying a moral code of laws, you're forcing your morals into lots of people that may not share them and may not agree with them. Even if a huge majority, 90% wanted this, there's that 10% of people who basically were forced to "convert" to these unshared morals. Therefore, I believe this is clearly wrong and should not be done. Instead, if you make ethical laws, everybody keeps their morals. Then, if 90% of the people have certain morals, they can still apply these morals with themselves, and avoid immoral things. They're free to do so, while leaving the people with different morals free to act differently. Ethics gives you freedom, even the freedom to have the morals you want.
Therefore, whatever the votes, whatever the support, the guy who got elected was doing something wrong in my opinion. Sometimes it may be hard to differentiate between something ethical and something moral, but basing all your laws on religion is quite clear a moral thing. Religion is not the only thing that can add morals to laws, though, and one needs to be always careful and try to stay on ethical grounds when making rules for everybody.
I would add a comment about democracy. Democracy is not voting every 4-5 years and letting the elected government do as they please. Democracy is not governing for your supporters only. Democracy is not denying rights, even when a majority of people actually wants to deny those rights. True democracy is to let everybody have a voice, an opinion. And true democracy is deciding all together what to do next, hearing at least every side of an opinion, and letting each side influence the outcome, while at the same time never imposing subjective things even when a majority would like to do so. I don't believe it is democratic to, for example, ban dancing, even if a majority of people agrees. If the action is not limiting another's person freedom (basically, not hurting anyone), even a majority of people should have nothing to say about it.
When this does not happen, it doesn't matter how it is done, but the government needs to be kicked out (and kicked hard).
And kicking out the government is always going to be a good action in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment