Protecting the Innocent

Without wishing to delve into the murky waters of social analysis about the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, and other fall-out from this event; a lot of what has gone on has been (inevitably) dragging up a key philosophical point of discussion in my mind.

So I’m taking this opportunity to follow that trail of thought and see where the breadcrumbs take me…

Who’s with me?

-

Well you can’t be with me unless you know what I stand for, right?
And yes, whilst there was an undoubted majority of the people declaring #jesuischarlie in the simple condemnation of the actions of the individual perpetrators; there have been undoubted use of this stance to solidify misguided ideas about ‘all Muslims’; or to say 'I don’t know what this Charlie Hebdo magazine is all about, but I defend their right to say whatever it is they said’.

Both present fairly obvious dangers in their logic; obvious to me - perhaps obvious to you - but not to everyone. Not to everyone who adopted the #jesuischarlie hashtag so readily.

And here’s where my philosophical dilemma comes in:

Absolute free speech [i.e. people can communicate whatever they want] is a problem. It is also an absolute ideal; and it is self-evident that reality allows for people to say/print/do whatever they want, so the absolute maxim seems assured.

Leaving aside the 'do’-ing whatever people want; even saying/writing/posting/blogging/printing anything you want is a challenge to the realities of society.

In an ideal world (which we know isn’t likely), everyone would understand that anything that anyone says is merely an expression of opinion {arguably the statement of facts is not an opinion, but I’ll leave that be for another time} - and so individuals who might have seen Charlie Hebdo’s provocative cartoons/articles, may well have recognised that these were satirical statements on some other individual’s views on world religions. [NB: I’m making an assumption here that the cartoons/articles were actually satirical, and not just deliberate antagonism].

And - the theory goes - those individuals wouldn’t have travelled into the heart of Paris, and shot dead 12 people on Wednesday 8th January 2015.

And to that point - If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. (So is paraphrased Dr Gregory House).
Which is the point I’m trying to echo - if everyone had received the satirical observations of a few Parisian journalists as simply that, it could be argued that the tragic events would not have happened.

However - and this is an important point lost somewhere amid the mainstream outbursts - Charlie Hebdo was actively attacking religious ideas. I believe there have been incidents in the past (stoked by the Danish cartoon controversy in 2005) where the newspaper were warned that their satire was provoking a reaction of outrage.

Now - an important point at this stage - it is very difficult to say that Charlie Hebdo should not have published what they published: Absolute freedom to say what you want is inherent in the universe - and I would not want an individual’s freedoms to be limited in any way.

But, Charlie Hebdo is was not an individual - it was an organisation of individuals. A body of people united by ideas about how the world should operate (e.g. no religion [Again - full disclosure - I am working on an assumption here that this was one of the aims of Charlie Hebdo; but the detail/intent isn’t important]).
Which sounds oddly familiar in semantics to ISIS or {insert-name-of-other-fundamentalist-organisation} - a body of people united by ideas about how the world should operate.

Both organisations implemented their ideals; one side to a much more extreme extent; but both were showing their beliefs.

Now, we in 'the West’ (arguably another large body of people united by some ideas about the world should operate - gender equality, EU bill of rights [Yes, I know - a mass generalisation]) can identify more closely to the Charlie Hebdo side; because of their social and geographical closeness to ourselves here in the UK.

But that has to be handled on an extremely sensitive basis - not only avoiding the generalisation and polarisation of much more moderate groups, peoples, races, cultures, beliefs.

-

But for me the problem comes back to the individual’s ability to rationalise everything the world throws at you. If all saw reason, and accepted that people that are not you have their own opinions and some of them may differ from yours; we would not be living in the shadow of terrorism.

Okay, that’s a bold statement and I think I’ve lost my way somewhat. Bear with me…

Protecting the Innocent was the article title I chose because I wanted to talk about the fact that whilst some of us are blessed with rational thought and are able to keep a cool head about us, because we live in a relatively privileged bubble away from harm - what can you do for those that aren’t as logical all the time - or those who give up their own ideas to other’s ideas that have been entrenched in social/religious movements?

I don’t want to tell people to censor what they say, or what they right; for fear of a less enlightened individual/organisation making your life a living terror - or (in the most extreme, but evidently real scenario) end your life prematurely.

But do we leave people alone to figure out what is logically true? Knowing full well that some people won’t be able to? That they’ll fill in their ideas with half-baked ideas from generations ago? That they’ll be indoctrinated from birth and will not even realise their folly?

And is there a danger that if we ever did anything to try and “educate” people, that we could also be accused of imposing our ideas onto others?

-

I think I struggle philosophically at this point, because self-discovery of the world around you is by its very definition only something that an individual can conduct themselves.

And unless you see your own flaws and skips in logic, you aren’t going to change your belief structure. After all, who can disprove that there isn’t a paradise waiting for you?

=

I think the only course of action is to induce logical thinking at an early age. Whilst people are legally 'innocents’. Even then it is a stretch that people will take to logical thought; and I am sure there are plenty of logical arguments that still result in people justifying the killing of others. Sure, those arguments are flawed; but unless the person sees the flaw, they will continue to practice what is preached.

Let’s keep the communication channels open - one thing the internet is good for is encouraging dialogue, independent thought, and challenging what is likely to be a smaller pool of ideas in your home geographical location; with the collective “wisdom” of what the world has to offer.

Here you will easily find the controversial front cover of Charlie Hebdo - uncensored - and you can make up your own mind about what was in particular being said.

Just don’t be a dick and go and kill someone if you don’t like what you see.