There's something I've always wondered about morality. And recent events have simply made me wonder more. The question is simple - is morality about doing the right thing that flows from ethical principles? Or is it ensuring that given one's overall knowledge of a situation, to ensure that the least worst outcome is brought about. Let me explain using two of the biggest geo-political events from the last one year, both of which made me wonder about the same thing.
First, the chaotic circumstances in which troops of USA withdrew from Afghanistan got me thinking about what they were doing there in the first place. Most of the media reporting it was talking about how Taliban rule would be disastrous for women and girls in particular. I think we can all agree that the education of girls and making sure that they are not simply confined indoors to be at the beck and call of others is a moral endeavour. Today with the Taliban, there exists (reportedly) a blanket ban on girls attending school.
So let us consider a hypothetical administration in the same country which decides to reverse this ban and take more steps in a similar direction towards what is broadly termed women's empowerment. Now, let us say that the current elites, the Taliban or in general whoever runs the show in Afghanistani society find these ideas so despicable that they are ready to launch an entire nation into an infinite crusade where they are ready to spill the blood of lakhs of their fellow countrymen but will simply not tolerate these steps. Of course, this isn't the exact scenario that played out, but in the American framing of the conflict, it was said that an American-backed administration would bring democracy, freedom and women's rights to the people of Afghanistan - so my hypothetical scenario isn't completely different from reality. It is merely extremely simplistic, ignoring the multiple layers involved, starting from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
So is the endeavour to bring an administration that promotes women's education a moral one? Maybe an easier way to frame it - let's say there's a person in a house doing something terrible - maybe beating up a defenceless child. And the person says that he has access to kerosene and a matchstick, so if anyone comes to the aid of the child, he will burn down the entire building. And you know for a fact that this person has shown this kind of behaviour before and that he has a large quantity of kerosene. Is it moral to try and save the child? Even more, is it moral to have the hubris to think that you will be able to save the child and stop the fire, when you actually don't? Can you defend that act by saying yours was an act of saving the child alone?
Let's look at Ukraine - if we know for a fact that the Russian military is far superior to the Ukrainian military, is it moral to send arms to Ukraine? Of course Ukraine has a right to defend itself. Of course, it is Russia that is the aggressor, the immoral actor here. It is useless to say that Russia shouldn't have attacked Ukraine. Now that Russia has already attacked Ukraine, the moral action would be to force Russia into halting it's assault and withdrawing her army. Clearly no one is willing to put everything into stopping Russia. So is asking Ukraine to fight on moral? Is asking Ukraine to simply surrender the real moral option?
I always think of a small garrison held by a chieftain with a small fort. And the empire's huge army comes rolling in, asking him to surrender. The chieftain is blameless. He lived honorably and now the emperor is refusing to grant him what is rightfully his. He's in a fortified position, ready to fight unto death. So every man in his army is probably worth about 5-10 men of the empire's army. The empire's army is in the open field and vulnerable. They also are pragmatic, so they are held back. If they see an weakness they can exploit, but with the loss of a few men, they will not charge into it. They will wait it out. Because they know eventually, they will overwhelm the chieftain. They vastly outnumber the chieftain's forces. Surely the chieftain is immoral for leading his people into certain defeat and death, even if he is the one who has been wronged.
The question is, in the face of immorality and might, what is morality to be judged on? The principle, or the outcome?
This blog post could have been a paragraph long and asked the same question, but I just wanted to paint my mind's picture.