Is it Ever Permissible and/or Obligatory to Intervene during a Genocide?

Genocide has come to the fore in the minds of 20th Century peoples.  Since the Shoah of World War II, the killing fields of Cambodia, the purges of Stalin, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the wholesale slaughter of Rwandans, and on and on, it can be said that no one is ignorant of the fact of genocide.  Samantha Powell has called it “The Problem from Hell” and that is perhaps an understatement.  After each genocide the rallying cry is “Never again” and “Never forget”, and yet genocide continues unabated.  The world comes up with new phrases to describe the indescribable: ‘killing fields, purges, ethnic cleansing,’ and one wonders if this is not the human minds’ willed confusion to avoid the naming of a thing so as to not have to come to terms with it.  In the same way the United Nations took decades to agree upon a definition of genocide, so unwilling is the human heart to look into that particular abyss.  

And when the world is willing to appropriate the name of genocide and attach it to ongoing events in a part of the world, still very little is offered in the way of an intervention.  Those enduring the slaughter wonder if no one knows, or if the world does not care.  Yet, one can find numerous private groups and organizations mobilized to help the helpless and to bring about an end to the suffering.  The world does care, and yet fails to offer an effective response.  Genocide reaches into our neighborhoods and living rooms when we see how people who look just like each other, who have lived for generations as neighbors, can become involved in a slaughter of innocents.  It permeates countries and cultures and political frameworks.  We too, if we are human, are at risk for genocide.  Yes, and our neighbors too.

Genocide is not a new problem.  History can be gleaned for instances of this particular mode of man’s inhumanity to man. It can be described as mere tribalism, now multiplied exponentially.  Modern weaponry, modern communications, the confusion of multitudes, all these lead to this relic of tribalism, but on steroids.  The world is not, I believe, uncaring, or unwilling in these matters.  But the world has not found a way to craft an appropriate response, and is as helpless as the helpless we would hope to save.  Can this change?  Can there be a creative, effective, carefully crafted response to genocide?

The world once transitioned from systems of tribes to systems of city-states, and from there to nation states.  The modern challenge comes as a transition to a global state, politically following what is already in effect economically.  More than ever we are subject to John Donne’s pronouncement that “No man is an island’.  Indeed no country is an island either.  In this period of transition, we must ask, what are the rules?  Are they the same?  Do we still apply the theories of just war, or of realism?  Is it possible in the face of slaughter to remain a pacifist?  The problem of genocide sidesteps some of the cautions that might adhere if we are wondering about whether to intervene in civil wars, or military coups, or dictatorships.  We are no longer asking only about the rights of a people to be left alone to determine their welfare.  This is a question of a peoples’ right to existence, and what is permissible or even obligatory to those who, if they did act, could make a difference in preserving those lives.

I am not arguing here for a particular decision, but for a new discussion regarding what the framework should be for permissible and/or obligatory intervention on the part of the worlds’ more powerful actors.  The precept, borrowed from medicine, of “first do no harm” may be, on the face of it, the most difficult hurdle to pass.  In an increasingly complex world it may be vanishingly improbable that enough information is ever at hand to be able to anticipate the unintended consequences that all actions are susceptible to.  Where it is impossible to know beforehand whether more harm may ensue can there still be a moral argument to take action?   Here I would argue that, even after events unfold, the complexity of our modern world is such that we still can not with certainty claim that less or more harm would have ensued had we taken a different course.  Therefore we must answer this question from a moral standpoint, rather than a utilitarian standpoint.

The criteria of “The Probability of Success” fails in the same regard as the first.  We cannot know beforehand, or even afterwards, regarding the effectiveness of our action in relation to if we had not acted at all.  Therefore again, this question must be answered from a moral standpoint.  But this does not mean that we cannot also make arguments toward what we hope will be more effective courses of action.  And information of this sort might not be available until the world has had more experience with intervening in genocides.  We have simply not intervened often enough to be able to collect enough relevant data to make empirical statements about what works.

Intervention would not conflict with the criteria of ‘Just Cause’ and ‘Right Intentions’, for what could be a more just cause than that which has the sole purpose and intent of stopping the deaths of innocents?  The difficulty seems to lie in the criteria of ‘Competent Authority’ and ‘Last Resort.’  Here again, the global nature of the modern world creates a scenario not unlike that which social scientists call the “bystander effect”.  Each authority is waiting for another authority to step in, with no nation wishing to take the first act.  And this is not easily overcome when there is always the suspicion that not everything has been tried, that we need not yet take intervening action as a Last Resort.

Perhaps some of the modern difficulty is an artifact of where the world finds itself in the modern arena, with discrete nations which are nevertheless economically intertwined, but which have not yet developed any kind of effective and agreed upon central authority with which to bring problems of the nature and magnitude of genocide.  The United Nations ought to be this kind of central authority, but has not yet developed or been invested with the ability to respond to the question of intervening in a genocide.  My hope is that a discussion around these issues can lead to a consensus concerning the criteria that would be sufficient to permit intervention and necessary to obligate an intervention.  Through such means it may be that the world will find itself less able to remain frozen in the stillness of a bystander.

‘Thinking: Fast and Slow’ - Lessons in Certitude

I have a bias.  I admit this.  I have a bias against certitude.  And I have a great fondness for Daniel Kahneman’s book, because it absolutely confirms my bias.  I am annoyingly fond of quoting William James:  “Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?”  In the same spirit I am committing many of Kahneman’s statements to memory.  His work as laid out in this book helps us to understand how we might respond to James’ rhetorical question.  

Kahneman’s use of a ‘two minds’ model in order to understand our own cognitive defects is enormously helpful.  He illustrates through careful and well thought out experiments the many ways in which we are not the rational beings that we think we are.  When the realization that we are vulnerable to the availability heuristic, the affect heuristic, confirmatory bias, ego depletion, loss aversion, the exposure and the priming effect and all the thousands of natural deficits that the human mind is heir to, then we might finally come to the realization that ‘humility is endless’.  (T.S. Eliot)

There often follows a question about the dangers of acknowledging that we do not, and perhaps can never, know anything with the certitude required for action.  Therefore there is a profound discomfort with this admission about our mental deficits, as if the admission itself will hamstring our ability to ever affect our world in a positive way.  Here I think that we must first make a commitment to what is true, as Socrates did.  Hopefully we will not die for it, but I am sure that we will be discomfited by it.  Until we acknowledge our human frailties of mind, emotion and reason, we will be forever mired in a kind of Hegelian purgatory, with one persons certitude polarized against another’s until they can beat out a kind of compromise that suits no one.

I believe that it is only when we accept our limitations, and come to understand what methods might be used to challenge ourselves to a greater clarity of mind, even knowing that we cannot approach as close to certitude as we would like, that we can most effectively work for improvements in our own lives and in the world.  It takes humility of spirit and intention to listen to and fully hear the stories of those with whom we disagree.  And I think it is this kind of listening that will lead to the culture shifts that are necessary before policy and platform changes can emerge.  The philosopher/poet/animal trainer Vicki Hearne wrote “The stories we tell ourselves are enormously important.”  When we become mindful and attentive to our stories and the stories of others, we might just have a chance.

What does it feel like to lose a child?

What does it feel like to lose a child? It feels like giving birth, but instead of bringing a child into this world, it is the giving of the child to whatever is beyond this world. And instead of a single event, it happens again and again and again. It hijacks you in the middle of a concert, or while listening to a lecture, or while driving to the grocery store. First you realize that it is harder and harder to catch your breath, and a vague panic sets in as your body takes over and you recede as an observer to a process that you cannot stop. Then the pains begin, waves of contractions, intensifying, then receding just long enough so you can gasp at the air before they come again. Then as they circle in, more and more intense, there is the need to bear down, to push and push, and to grit your teeth against the screams that will not be stopped, but grow louder and louder, til there is no voice left. It only comes to a close when exhaustion sets in. But it will come again. It comes unbidden, without thought, and keeps me always in this middle place, between worlds, never wholly here nor there. 'Stayed by what was, and pulled by what would be'. That is what it is like.

Tiling Metaphysical Space with a Trinity of Principles

Celtic Knot Anisohedral Tiling (Tessellation)

It is my precept and understanding that the teachings of Jesus can be refined down to three basic principles: 

1) Everyone is included
2) Don't judge others
3) Treat people right

These form a kind of twitter like shorthand (mix those metaphors, Tess) that are easily remembered, easily understood and well, not so easily lived out.  My evidence for #1 comes primarily from the parables.  I do not think it is by accident that Jesus told stories, that he created narrative to communicate ideas.  Stories weather the ravages of texts and culture and abuse, retaining their coherence and power across the ages better than many others forms of teaching.  The scholar John Dominic Crossan wrote "Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus."  Those who know me will realize quickly that I came to love this book first because of it's title.  The reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins "Dark Night of the Soul" sonnet  "No worst, there is none" is a soul catcher for me.  And then the alliteration in the title, including the word polyvalence which rolls so trippingly off the tongue, grabbed at my aesthetic sensibilities.  But I stayed for the content.  I do think that the parables are the closest that we can come to the "ipsissima verba", the very words that Jesus spoke.  And so I weight them more heavily than other texts.

And the evidence for #1 comes from the The Parable of the Wedding Feast.  There is an ever widening circle of invitations, ending with "Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast".  Ultimately, everyone is invited.  And in stories from the activities of Jesus, he included the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the lepers.  Why, he even included the children!  The invitation is for everyone, without exception.  Those who participate in exclusionary dealings with others are not following the actions and words and example of Jesus.


The evidence for #2 comes from the story of the Woman taken in Adultery and from the Sermon on the Mount.  In his Sermon Jesus is very clear about judgment.  “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."   And in the story of the Woman taken in Adultery, Jesus refuses to cast judgment, even as the Pharisees are trying to put him in a difficult position.  He uses the same line of thinking as he gave us in the Sermon.  He tells the accusers that whoever among them is without sin, he may cast the first stone.  There is the apocryphal story that as Jesus was saying this he was writing the sins of the accusers in the dust.  Jesus refuses to participate in the dialogue that the Pharisees are trying to control.  He sidesteps their intentions by answering their question with a question of his own.  And thereby goes straight to the heart of the problem of judgment.

The evidence for #3 is known generally to us moderns as "The Golden Rule".  "Do to others what you would have them do to you."  It is also called the "Ethic of Reciprocity" and exists in some form in almost all belief and philosophical systems:

Brahmanism"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Confucianism:  "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

Ancient Egypt:   "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.

Hinduism:  This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517 

Islam:  "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Judaism:  "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

I like to simplify it to "treat people right", because I have a core belief that each one of us really DOES know how to do that, if we only spend a little bit of time thinking about it.

Now, it cannot be ignored that I have not included any of Jesus' directives about love among this trinity of principles.  The reason for this is because I think that there is an inversion that has taken place and reigns supreme in our culture.  And this inversion makes it difficult to use the word love in a way that communicates what I believe Jesus meant when he used the word love. The inversion is that love is a feeling.  Love is not a feeling.  Love is an action.  Love is played out in the act of refraining from judgment.  Love is played out in all acts of inclusion.  Love is played out each time we treat another person well.  It may be that a wonderful feeling follows upon these acts and even helps to perpetuate them.  Or it may not.  But it is in carrying out these acts that we are doing the work of love.

Imagine our lives if we can live each day with these three principles in mind, just 3x3 words:

Everyone is included.

Do not judge.

Treat people right.

Each principle is a tile that we can use to pattern the metaphorical plane and create a tessellation; a pattern or behavior that makes a work of art from out of the actions in our lives.  This is loving the Lord with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strengh and with all our mind.  And this is loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Tessellations in the Garden

I think that this would be called an irregular, three dimensional, Euclidean space, tessellated natural structure, otherwise known as Sedum!  And it is from my garden!

This is a salt water tessellation.

And this is a complex tessellation from nature., a tessellation on the water caused by the refraction of the light from the sun.

Letter to the Editors at Scientific American Magazine

I entreat the editors at Scientific American to please stick to science.  When you do, I feel that I am getting my money's worth and am not wasting my time and energies wading through articles (and especially blogs and columns) that are not worth the effort.  I do not need or desire anyone on your staff to suggest to me what I ought to think about non-scientific endeavors, i.e.; religion art, politics, etc.

I know this can be difficult when dealing with the soft sciences, but I think you can do better.  And when dealing with more concrete disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, geology, etc., please do not get all gobbledygookish on your readers.  I do not need to read all the things that science thinks dark matter is when in fact no one (yet) knows.  I don't mind reading through theories or even flights of fancy, but so often it is presented as "wow, scientists now believe x,y,z" when in fact no science has actually been done, or no consensus exists because it is early days yet.

When science is done badly, or even presented badly, it makes it very difficult to discuss (for instance) global warming, where science HAS been done and there IS a consensus, with ones relatives who insist they have done the research and they are certain that global warming is a hoax.  When you present science badly, and when you insist on publishing op eds and blogs on subjects that do not fall within the parameters of scientific inquiry, then you muddy the waters that you insist you are trying to clear.  Then we are fishing blindly and no nourishment can be found

Meanwhile... I am getting so tired of all the religiosity of the anti-religious bloggers and columnists that you give ample space to in your otherwise wonderful magazine. The pursuit of science seems every bit as vulnerable as the pursuit of other disciplines to the fallibility of all human endeavor. I think that it would be a much more worthwhile endeavor, in the cause of advancing science, to first clean your own house, take the beam out of your own eye, etc. Science claims for itself things that the scientific method has not yet supported. It may yet, or it may not. But until it actually does, better to be careful how you report information.  I LOVE science, good science. Good science does not include spending your time and space arguing about things that are outside the domain of science. So, give me well designed, constructed and implemented experiments, and keep me updated on the work of scientists. Please do not make science into another religion.

Response to Jamaica Plain Census

(For anyone interested in the actual data I am writing in response to you, can find it at  

http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/articles/census-jamaica-plain-gets-whiter-and-less-brown)

This is a very murky set of statistics.

Exhibit A:  I make it a point to never answer the question of “race” except with the obvious scientific answer of “homo sapiens sapiens”.  A more accurate term when referring to various groups of peoples is “population”.  Even “ethnicity” has become too murky a term to use in conversation if the goal is to actually communicate ideas.

Exhibit B:  The statistics in the above article refer to those in the community who self-identify as only ONE of the choices.  This is murky within murky.  Self-identification is of no use for accurate data in this context.  And these statistics do not take into account all those people who refuse to honor only one of the choices offered because they know that it would not accurately reflect who they are.  Most people have very little idea about their origin past a few generations.  The constructs they are holding onto are cultural constructs.

Exhibit C:  is a challenge.  Send a cheek swab to the National Geographic Human DNA Project and learn about your more ancient past.  It can be illuminating.  This is how a Mexican priest learns that he carries the “Aaron” gene on his Y chromosome, or how a dark skinned man from the American south learns that his mtDNA (from mother to mother) is predominantly European.

Exhibit D:  Jamaica Plain abounds with people who have married outside of their population (“race”) and produced children that continue to produce children with others outside of each population circle.  How is this multitude reflected in the quoted set of statistics?  And how do these people react to a set of statistics that utterly excludes them, and yet is used to make points about the community they belong to?

There is (currently) only one human race.  It is homo sapiens sapiens.  Within this race, there are multitudes of ever shifting populations.  I believe that the statistics quoted above refer to the respondents understanding of what culture they identify with.  And that is useful.  But you must not say that it is something else.  It is not even a bad approximation of the diversity that is Jamaica Plain.  As a census of “race” it is poorly devised and utterly useless.

A new paradigm needs to be created to be able to actually study the population of Jamaica Plain and the rest of America as well.  It cannot include terms like “race” and “ethnicity”.  It cannot use peoples own self-identification regarding which population they see themselves belonging to.

While hair texture, eye shape and color and the amount of melanin we have are obvious identifiers, they are, after all, only skin deep.