William Wilberforce was a young man who was wealthy and ambitious. He wanted to change the world, and according to the film, Amazing Grace (which is excellent), he did so. I'm not sure that he's a hero though. His life story is a convenient narrative onto which we may attribute many great things, which of course have a lot to do with him, but might have happened otherwise. My point is not to denigrate Wilberforce in ay way but to examine the impulse towards changing the world for the better.
I contend that if we are heading towards a world in which war is to be minimalized as thinkers like Barnett would strategize, we are going to have a philosophical and even metaphysical crisis. We are going to have to make might right. Because while it's clear that we have the might, we are not clear on how or why we should use it. And liberal thinkers among us are faced with (not that conservatives aren't) an awesome task of determining the reasons why our causes matter anywhere outside of our own heads. Here's the way to think about it.
If there are no human rights in Ghana, why should we care?
This is a very fundamental question. I'll answer from a liberal Christian perspective. We are all children of God and in God's eyes he sees us all as equals. We all have souls and no soul is more valuable than another. The New Testament compels us to treat others as we would be treated ourselves. So, for example, if I have the expectation to live to be 70 years old, then I should expect that the Ghanaians should have the same expectations. Whatever that thing is which is keeping us apart as brothers in the Body of Christ should be moved. Our security should be their security, our justice should be their justice, our rights should be their rights. We should be all equal.
So I ask again, by what right do we impose our vision of human rights, civil rights, education, health care, and security upon the people of Ghana? We would obviously be destroying something of theirs - that thing that has allowed them the self-esteem to have babies and smile they have been able to do presumeably for hundreds of years without us. Why should we bother with them? What indeed is the aegis of our morality?
If a man is a slave, what is our responsibility to free him from bondage we didn't create? What is our responsibility to free him from bondage we did have a hand in creating?
I'm going to leave the question open because I think there are profound implications lurking. But I would add one more question.
What is the framework for equality? That is to say, what materially establishes mutual brotherhood? How do we know that somebody is not an enemy but a peer worthy of mutual respect and protection? How are such points established and on what basis? When do we know that we stand in equality?
Recent Comments