Double Speak on Double Standards: How About an Ethics of Euphemisms?
Jonathan Schleifer
Issue date: 9/20/06 Section: Op-Ed
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In former Iranian President Khatami's talk "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence," there was little to be learned about ethics or tolerance. Instead, it was an artful display of double speak.
Khatami masterfully employed euphemism, ambiguity, and analogy to deliver his message. On the surface it was pleasant, reflective, and seemingly sincere but its subtext was condemning, simplistic, and worn-out.
He began with his own history of the Unites States of America. His history was neither reflective nor insightful; it was merely inciting. It was an odd mix of historical references designed to establish his tacit premises. He drew no explicit conclusions, but the message was clear: The United States of America is a hegemon with a dirty past.
Premises established, he moved to his thesis: "What needs to be denounced in our world is the existence and practice of double standards… we cannot and should not justify a state's total war against a defenseless population on the basis of its sovereignty and international recognition … while condemning the violence perpetrated by that population as barbaric and inhumane ..."
In an ethical system, double standards are dangerous. However, broad rules, like "double standards are bad," when applied to vague circumstances are not only dangerous but meaningless. Sadly Khatami chose not to elaborate on the nature of double standards or to provide an example. Instead we are left to guess who the state and the "defenseless population" are.
He never gave his audience a chance to accept or reject his ethical propositions, because he never made his point. He never explicitly articulated his ethical positions, so their veracity cannot be proven or disproved.
He continued: "I declare unequivocally that whoever speaks of crusades ….whoever intends to advance illusory goals under the smokescreen of the defense of freedom and democracy and in so doing, tramples on undisputed human rights, commits an unethical and reprehensible act and should be condemned."
Khatami masterfully employed euphemism, ambiguity, and analogy to deliver his message. On the surface it was pleasant, reflective, and seemingly sincere but its subtext was condemning, simplistic, and worn-out.
He began with his own history of the Unites States of America. His history was neither reflective nor insightful; it was merely inciting. It was an odd mix of historical references designed to establish his tacit premises. He drew no explicit conclusions, but the message was clear: The United States of America is a hegemon with a dirty past.
Premises established, he moved to his thesis: "What needs to be denounced in our world is the existence and practice of double standards… we cannot and should not justify a state's total war against a defenseless population on the basis of its sovereignty and international recognition … while condemning the violence perpetrated by that population as barbaric and inhumane ..."
In an ethical system, double standards are dangerous. However, broad rules, like "double standards are bad," when applied to vague circumstances are not only dangerous but meaningless. Sadly Khatami chose not to elaborate on the nature of double standards or to provide an example. Instead we are left to guess who the state and the "defenseless population" are.
He never gave his audience a chance to accept or reject his ethical propositions, because he never made his point. He never explicitly articulated his ethical positions, so their veracity cannot be proven or disproved.
He continued: "I declare unequivocally that whoever speaks of crusades ….whoever intends to advance illusory goals under the smokescreen of the defense of freedom and democracy and in so doing, tramples on undisputed human rights, commits an unethical and reprehensible act and should be condemned."
Be the first to comment on this story