Ted Honderich was my classmate at the U of Toronto. He was perhaps the best student in the class. Nice to see that he has come to no good according to the hacks hired to smear any criticism of capitalism and US foreign policy. It is amazing that these reviews actually present almost no evidence for their conclusions or rather slurs.
Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:24 AM Subject: [PEN-L:30297] Why do they hate us? The Telegraph, Sept. 17, 2002 When in doubt, blame the US Noel Malcolm reviews The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World by Mark Hertsgaard and After the Terror by Ted Honderich "Why do they hate us?" is, we are told, the question that most Americans were asking themselves in the immediate aftermath of September 11 last year. The "they" that mattered here turned out to be an unrepresentative ultra-extremist organisation, and so the question may have lost some of its force. But, put another way, it is still a question worth asking: what are the origins of anti-Americanism, and why is it capable of attaining such virulence, such extremes of hatred? A well-researched cultural and ideological history of anti-Americanism, exploring its history, its different strands - Leftist, Rightist, Euro-nationalist, Cold War, Islamic, Third Worldist and so on - and, above all, the strange interactions and cross-fertilisations between them, is a book that I would dearly like to read. But, if one is being written as a response to September 11, do not expect it to appear just yet. Serious research requires more than the six months' writing time that went into most of the current crop of anniversary publications. Instead, what we have is writers on the hobby-horses that they had already mounted, long before the Twin Towers were hit. These two books, by the American journalist Mark Hertsgaard and the Canadian-British philosopher Ted Honderich, are dressed up as meditations on the significance of that terrible event: their titles hint at it portentously, and their dust-jackets have sombre photographs of US flags and vapour trails, the Statue of Liberty and a pall of smoke. But a truer subtitle, in each case, would be: "As I Was Going To Say, Before I Was Interrupted". Mark Hertsgaard did at least have one major advantage: by September last year he was already more than half-way through a lengthy round-the-world tour, collecting interviews and impressions for a book about popular attitudes to America. Some of that material (though not much - his publishers should look again at his expense claims and try calculating the unit cost per anecdote) has found its way into this slim volume. He has discovered, for example, that young people round the world like watching pop videos on MTV, that American tourists abroad can sometimes seem loud and pushy, and that many people still want to emigrate to the United States. But the main purpose of this book is not to unveil these and other such remarkable findings. Rather, it is to tell readers (American ones, primarily) what is wrong with America in Mr Hertsgaard's opinion - an opinion that was formed, evidently, quite a long time before he reached the departure lounge. His previous publications include a book about the dangers facing the global environment, and one entitled On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency. Sure enough, this book contains tirades about the global effects of American consumerism, the pro-corporate bias of the American press, and the general evils of Reagan, Bush and Bush. What has all this got to do with September 11? Since the al-Qaeda terrorists were not, so far as we know, protesting about greenhouse gas emissions, or about the stage-management of White House press conferences, or even about Reagan's tax policies or the vote-counting procedures in Florida, the answer has to be: not much. Professor Honderich has tried to stick closer to the really big issues. Instead of anecdotes and vox pops, his book (Edinburgh UP, £15.99, 160 pp) is filled with abstract argumentation about moral philosophy, the nature of democracy, the definition of political violence, and so on. As a result, this book is able to be bad in a much more serious way. Indeed, I think it is one of the worst books I have ever read. The key points of the argument are as follows. There is no real difference between an act of omission and an act of commission. This means that each time I fail to give money to Oxfam to save the lives of starving Africans - for example, each time I spend money on a holiday - I am responsible for killing people. Therefore we are all, in a real sense, murderers, and the West is collectively responsible for the elimination of human life on a colossal scale. (Western interventions to help starving Africans, such as the ill-fated American operation in Somalia, naturally pass unmentioned here.) If terrorists were to try to correct this injustice by murdering thousands of people in New York, that action would not be justified - because it would be "irrational", that is, not likely to achieve its intended effect. (Note in passing that if a more rationally calculated method could be devised - eg kidnapping the children of rich Westerners and demanding ransoms - this argument would apparently support it.) But even so, Honderich insists, if such terrorists did massacre people in New York in such an unjustified way, we, the people of the West, would bear "moral responsibility" for their actions. By this point, readers may be wondering whether Professor Honderich believes that Osama bin Laden, in attacking the World Trade Center, was trying to persuade the West to feed Africans. The answer seems to be "yes". But he cannot quite bring himself to say this, resorting instead, in one of the most weaselly paragraphs of the book, to a rhetorical question ("Is it possible to suppose that the September 11 attacks had nothing at all to do with . . . Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Sierra Leone?") and a nudging hint ("In thinking about it, remember that the attacks on the towers were indeed attacks on the principal symbols of world capitalism"). At last, the real enemy is in view. In the final part of the book, Honderich attacks those people who argued that the American military campaign in Afghanistan was justified because America represented capitalism. So far as I know, nobody did argue that, but never mind - Honderich certainly doesn't. He lists the standard arguments in favour of capitalism and the market economy (for example, that they embody some real freedoms), and then demonstrates that they are all worth "about nothing". And how does he demonstrate this? He says that if those arguments were true, it would follow "that the world is OK, maybe as good as possible"; since the world is not OK, it follows that all arguments in favour of capitalism are worthless. It is just bewildering, and deeply depressing, to think that an eminent professor of philosophy can produce this sort of stuff. Not spending £15.99 on this book is one act of omission we should all feel impelled to commit. ==== From Ted Honderich's website at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/ATTinbrief.html Take the nine countries of United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Japan. Compare them with the four African countries of Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Zambia. The individuals in the first group of countries, our group, have life-expectancies or average lifetimes of about 78 years. Those in the second group live for an average of 40 years. That means that many individuals in the second group, those who pull the average down to 40, have half-lives at best. This is only partly owed to a certain fact, but it is a fact that needs attention for itself. In the United States and like countries, for every 1,000 live births, the number of children who die under the age of 5 years is about 5 or 6. The number of dyings for the second group is about 200. The proximate or immediate explanation of the difference, and the full lives as against the half-lives, and of other things to be mentioned, is material means to well-being. We in our group of countries have means worth an average of $24,000 a year. The individuals in the African countries have means worth an average of $220 a year. Compare the economically best-off 10th of population in our group of countries with the worst-off 10th of population in the four African countries. The average lifetimes in our best-off 10th are about 80 years. The individuals in the worst-off 10th in the other group live for an average of about 30 years. So most of those in the latter 10th who bring the average down to 30 have quarter-lives at best. Consider the individuals in the worst-off African 10th, and the question of whether their average lifetimes might have been increased. You could keep in mind that in part of the 20th Century, the life-expectancy of American whites increased by about 5 years a decade. That happened, so to speak, without trying. If we in our countries had made a deliberate and real effort to help, would those Africans now alive in the worst-off 10ths live an average of 15 years longer? 10? Say only 5. There are about 10 million individuals in the worst-off 10th. So there is a loss of 20 million years of living-time. Losing living-time, maybe 50 years yourself, is not the same as being killed. No one makes that mistake. No one needs to make it in order to reflect on the number. In thinking after September 11 of our part in the story if any, as it seems to me, the first and largest subject must be our omissions. We have omitted to help those who die early. However, there are also our positive acts, so-called, our commissions -- or rather, there is the other end from omissions of the range of our actions considered in terms of intentionality. Here is one case. In 1900, within something close to living memory, there were about 500,000 Arabs and 50,000 Jews in Palestine. Many of the latter had arrived recently on account of the barbarism of anti-Semitism. The subsequent horror of the mass murder of European Jews in the Second World War did not issue, as in justice it ought to have, in a protected Jewish state carved out of Germany. After the war, according to a United Nations resolution, Palestine was to be divided into 2 states. There were about 749,000 Arabs and 9,250 Jews in what would be the Arab state, and 497,000 Arabs and 498,000 Jews in what would be the Jewish state. It was a moral necessity, in my morality, that a Jewish state be founded somewhere. That it be maintained as it was founded, partly by way of Zionist terrorism, was also such a necessity. There has since been no Palestinian state but rather 50 years of obstruction and the rapacious occupation of more and more land by Israel. Most Arabs have been driven out of their homes, partly by means of state-terrorism. In the years 1989 to 1991, there were between 250,000 and 400,000 Jews settled on Arab land. Of about 7 million Palestinians, about half are now outside of Palestine. All this history, and the actions by Israel after September 11, have been importantly owed to the policies and actions of the United States in particular. The resolutions of the United Nations against Israel have come to nothing because of the United States. These accounts of deprivation by omission and by commission, our parts in Africa and Palestine, give rise to large questions. Our present concern, however, is the general understanding and defining of bad lives and good lives. Let us not struggle with the matter, say, of whether a life can be bad in virtue of being frustrated just in terms of the good of culture. Let us rather resolve, if that is the right verb, that those with half-lives, dying children, quarter-lives, those who lose 20 million years of living-time -- that these individuals have bad lives. It is worth noticing that this judgement seems to be both indisputable, a matter of fact, and yet as good as in the old category of value-judgements. So too, we can take it, do the Palestinians have bad lives, first because of being denied the great good of freedom and power in a homeland. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org