MysteriousFaith

Honesty About Hypocrisy

Are the actions of the United States perceived outside our borders as being immoral? This DVD asks the question of what it might mean to US foreign policy if we were to assume “if it is wrong when they do something bad, it is wrong when we do the same thing.”

DVD Review - Distorted Morality - Noam Chomsky

This DVD is my first exposure to the works of Noam Chomsky. For those who would point towards past controversies Dr. Chomsky has been a part of, please allow this review to focus on this speech and this DVD only. I have not yet been sufficiently exposed to Dr. Chomsky’s works as to comment fully on his politics. I am interested only in the questions this DVD is asking, nothing more.

Dr. Chomsky’s talk begins by addressing the definition of hypocrisy: “… if it is wrong when they do something, it is wrong when we do it …” His next statement is that his thesis is that “…we are all total hypocrites …” The not-so-subtle point he is making is that one man’s war is another man’s terrorism. He allows you to make this connection, and frankly, it is probably a very fair paradox to dwell on. I am going to guess that many of Dr. Chomsky’s critics view his questions as being anti-American and at the very least anti-establishment. But such a position trivializes the questions he is asking. Such a perspective chooses to look past the most pressing question of whether or not we act with consistency, because if we do not, we are hypocrites, which means we are acting immorally.

Were we to be willing to base all decisions on morality (hence the title of the DVD being distorted morality), it would force us to recognize that we make decisions often on the basis of what will be best for us. Is that even rightly said? Do we not often make decisions on the basis of what will maximize our power, our wealth, our security, our safety? The desire to create a world entirely fixated on protecting my sense of security is very understandable - it is very human of me. But it is not, I would suggest, moral which means I must accept that much of what colors my perspective is simply not right.

The very use of the word “moral” is loaded. To some it represents the religious and so, as the inevitable outcome of such an association, fixates on trivial externals (what some would call “lifestyle choices”). But when using the concept of morality within a geo-political context, Dr. Chomsky seems to be challenging us to use the concept of morality as a test of how we view our fellow-man. I found this line of thought challenging: do those of us who feel we are religious fail the test of fixating on true morality? Do we focus on trivial issues, willing to allow other parts of mankind to suffer and die at the hands of cruel despots because we are unwilling to sacrifice our chance of obtaining maximum safety and security by intervening? Or is it even more insidious than that? Is it not simply an issue of maximizing our security, but that we are apathetic? We just do not care enough to make it something we are willing to sacrifice on?

To use Dr. Chomsky’s speech in a purely political context is a mistake. I am not so sure that a change in administrations from Republican to Democrat will fundamentally alter the essence of that which he spoke on. Is what he touches on not the essence of the human condition? The primacy of fear and greed? The fear of losing what we have, of the opportunity to obtain all that we want? The greed of wanting all that we do not have? The inability to discriminate between needs and wants?

Several times during his talk, Dr. Chomsky challenges the listeners to understand that his use of the word “we” is not some abstract entity “America.” He, as I have learned the consummate linguistic professor, reinforces his point by reminding us that “we” is another way of saying “you and I.” It is this challenge that perhaps I am still struggling with: were I to fully accept his comments as I understand them, I must be forced to question with this, what now? How does one combine the pragmatism needed from systems of government (the reality that complete altruism is not to be found on this side of eternity’s veiled curtain) with the need to protect and act on the behalf of the indefensible?

I have three questions after reviewing this DVD. As I reflect on them and hopefully, as others suggest insights into these questions, I may revisit them in a future article:

1. Are we not, as many past powerful nations (some would say empires), acting only out of economic and political self-interests?
2. If that is correct, how do we introduce consistency (minimize hypocrisy) and genuine altruism into our political discourse as well as those issues we act on as a nation?
3. Is there a past society, or even simply a leader, that led his nation in this delicate balancing act between politics and altruism?

previous post: Professional Publications
next post: Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• March 23, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website