‘Whataboutism’ vs ‘rules-based order’

Russia and China’s dismissals of the US and the West’s authority in the international system (the rules-based order) by pointing to Western wars such as the Iraq War of 2003 or the 2011 bombing of Libya are in turn rejected in Western circles as ‘whataboutism’. But is this succinct reply a sufficient defence of the West?

Someone saying 'what about', and bringing up the other fellow's own failings or sins, like any ad hominem attack, is not necessarily a false argument. If someone’s whole point in an argument is that you are a thief, and you are in fact a thief, then their argument is in fact valid.

In logic, ‘Whataboutism’ is only a false argument when its structure contains a conclusion that does not really follow, for example, 'you are a thief too, therefore I am not a thief'.

No-one really says anything so absurd, so to accuse someone of this logical fallacy is ridiculous. The Russians and Chinese have never made the claim that they are innocent of crimes because they can show the West also commits crimes.

Western hypocrisy is the point

When Russia and China defenders point to the West’s hypocrisy, they are never asserting a false conclusion or falsely claiming to refute a Western allegation. They are just refusing the discussion entirely, because they have another topic they would prefer to talk about.

To claim this refusal of the subject, in favour of attacking the West’s hypocrisy, is an ad hominem fallacy, is no more correct than to claim that Russian diplomats refusing to talk about hot dogs is an ad hominem attack on the intellects of American barbecue-goers, and that Russian answers must be about hot dogs or else they are doing ‘whataboutism’. If you think someone is talking nonsense, you don’t have to address the minutiae of it. If you want, you can wisely change the subject to their credibility, which should have been established first anyway.

As soon as ‘what about Iraq?’ is asked, the United States’ moral authority and its right to confront other nations on moral issues in the first place becomes the subject of the discussion. Under those conditions, whataboutism is a valid argument. We are rewinding the discussion to where it should really start. We are judging the moral character that the US and the West are tacitly claiming (which they need to establish first, before appointing themselves to accuse other nations), so facts that hurt their character are valid to bring up.

'What about whataboutism?'

In fact, invoking the term ‘whataboutism’ when facing Russian and Chinese claims about the West may itself be a form of ‘whataboutism’ (in this case it takes the form ‘what about whataboutism?’), and an example of this as a real logical fallacy. Western apologists in this case really are falsely inferring that they have refuted Russian and Chinese accusations of Western hypocrisy by dismissing them as logical fallacies, when the accusations may not be logical fallacies but distinct and accurate claims that hurt the West's standing.

Someone being guilty of a crime himself arguably destroys his moral authority to judge others committing the same crime and removes his right to take the podium to talk about another fellow's crime. His own actions in committing the crime make his moral authority and statements on anyone else’s crimes dubious, and call his motivations into question. It may show that he is actually just looking for a monopoly on force or the right to commit crimes, rather than sincerely addressing crimes.

When used to challenge someone’s moral authority or ideology, ‘whataboutism’ is a valid and healthy starting point before addressing someone’s claims in the first place. It is not only logically valid but devastating to an opponent, if they cannot withstand it.

WHOAREYOUism

Whataboutism is not a rude interruption to the West's accusations against any regime. It is a legitimate attempt to rewind the conversation to where it ought to begin. The correct phrasing actually goes: 'who are you'?

If the West’s claim is that it represents some kind of moral purity or higher authority, which is indeed its claim when it uses the term ‘rules-based order’ to describe a vision of itself safeguarding international rules and norms, then for Russia and China to point out that it is untrustworthy because of its hypocrisy is fatal to the West.

‘Whataboutism’ is the winner. A ‘rules-based order’ proposed by cockroaches is no way to start cleaning the world, because their very nature disqualifies them from talking about it.

Read More »

The dead tree theory of civilisation

Regardless of the passing novelties of culture, falling like leaves in the autumn, there are indispensable riches that transcend even a dead civilisation or social order, to persist. The essential heirlooms of a civilisation are protected and planted again, like acorns.

The origin of the term "radical" came from the Latin word for "root". Those who were radical would hack at the root, or get to the root of the problem. They would, to use an expression favoured by Jean-Paul Marat, bring the hatchet (or ax) to their root.

Inevitable moral decay?

Far from needing to be hacked down, trees eventually die by themselves. If nothing else brings illness to the tree, its death can occur when it becomes so large that it can no longer support its own weight. Then, however majestic it may seem, it will collapse. A tree may even rot while it stands, such that its great size and apparent triumph over other trees may mean nothing.

There have been successive civilisations that were at the centre of the economic life of the world. Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the more vaguely defined "Western civilisation" of the present day, with its multiple centres in London, Washington DC, Paris and elsewhere. There is no disputing that each of them collapsed, nor can we dispute that the collapse was necessary for the continued excellence of humanity, although the modern one cannot countenance its own ultimate fate as anything similar.

Many people of a conservative persuasion believe they see things rotten about our society, things that are continuously changing for the worse. They may point to increased sexual liberty and rights that were not typical of the higher and more accomplished stages of a civilisation. It has been argued that a higher civilisation adopts puritanical moral structures and a focus on scientific and artistic accomplishments in order to impress, and that denying excessive sexual liberty assists in this because it helps to keep humanity focused on human excellence rather than primitive joy. Those of a liberal persuasion, on the other hand, welcome any increase in personal liberty, and will only laugh at the above, but their response likely isn't any newer than the views of people during other declines.

It is difficult to form a rational case in relation to the idea of the moral corruption of society, because the outcome depends on one's pre-existing values. The very process of analysing flaws in the moral character of society requires first of all adopting values without rational justification, such as the view that excellence and intellect are better than laziness and pleasure.

How to detect decadence

Decadence, the steady loss of what gave a culture its value, may manifest in worsening cultural products and art forms that are not worth saving, in contrast to the creations of what would have been considered the works of a higher civilisation in its golden age. Everything is just a passing, worthless thing. This may result in a decreased ability to identify with any kind of culture and eventually, with other people in society. Even still, we may still have powerful governments, reminiscent of empires of old, dependent on the inertia of past accomplishments, up until the moment of their failure.

The idea of decadence implies that those who succumb to it either don't recognise it or don't recognise a problem with it, maybe instead being pleased with it. The concept suggests that a society can become sick without even realising it, because its own capacity to recognise goodness or judge itself is also being corrupted, succumbing to the same cultural and intellectual sickness it cannot see.

Decadence also signifies age. If it is a real sickness, it is inescapable and everyone is somewhat infected. Where the conservative is wrong might, then, not be in his dismay at the diminishing of moral or cultural value, but in his delusions that he can do anything to reverse it. A dead tree cannot be restored to a living one, and the clock cannot be turned back on society. Only a fresh acorn, planted elsewhere, has any potential after that.

To fell the tree

It is possible to appreciate both the progressive and the conservative, to see their roles in history.

The believers in progress perform a necessary role in the life of a civilisation, allowing the adoption of new ideas, new scientific models, and new technologies, but any kind of utopia may ultimately prove impossible or harmful, and so the reactionaries also have a valid role. If indeed a civilisation collapses, those who depended on its present state are not going to be the seeds of a new tree; only conservatives could create new civilisations or establish the next outposts of progress. Think what you like of them, but they bear with them a tried and tested formula for how to construct a society and civilisation, whereas the modern liberal only bears faith in the progress of the existing model and will refuse to go back to past traditions or simplicity.

The conclusion that necessarily follows from identifying what is considered decadent is that a thing is unworthy of respect or loyalty, once it is sufficiently debased that you no longer identify with it. It follows that a decadent culture or civilisation imperils those outside of it, like a rotten tree that threatens to fall when it might be inconvenient and should therefore be felled with all urgency. Its destruction, like that of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible, can eventually be justified.

Get more philosophical musings by email:

Powered by

Read More »

Can societies really become decadent and collapse?

The notion of decadence, the eventual degeneration of a society or civilisation due to its own failings, once fascinated scholars. However, such a notion is now virtually unheard of except to some conservatives.

Interest in the idea of civilisational deterioration and collapse could have diminished because the idea was offensive to believers in the creed of perpetual social progress and development. Western campuses have, for a long time, been unfriendly to any idea that could align with reactionary rhetoric, such as a theory about moral decline, so most eminent thinkers in the West will avoid the topic completely.

Those of us most likely to talk about some form of civilisational decadence or moral deterioration gripping the developed and so-called "civilised" countries, namely the West, are likely to be of the reactionary mindset. This was not always the case.

There was a Marxist-Leninist notion of decadence, although it had no social or moral meaning and was only an economic observation. This was simply the theory that the epoch of capitalism could come to the end of its life, as capitalism could exhaust itself as a model of progress and from then on, only destroy its own accomplishments through war or turn into imperialism.

Civilisational longevity

In liberal and secular humanist thought, there seems to be no heed given to the longevity of one's culture or civilisation at all. All rational discourse is focused on the welfare, happiness and rights of individuals in the here and now. There is no thought for the morrow, as everything is invested in just doing what is right today. This is miraculously subverted when the issue of human survival is brought up. As soon as scientists suggest building settlements on Mars as a long-term investment against an extinction on Earth, the modern liberal is likely to support that endeavour, apparently forgetting that it does nothing for the welfare or rights of the individual.

People of the liberal persuasion are inhibited from investing in civilisational survival as any kind of priority, because it entails a kind of collectivism that could clash with individual rights. If investing in the distant future of humanity or our civilisation is made into any kind of priority, it could result in restrictions on behaviour that are offensive to individual liberty. It could, for example, result in social pressure to reproduce, which the liberal ideology prefers to treat as being solely the concern of the individual, not of the society or species.

It could be that a civilisation with a liberal monoculture could persist indefinitely, because it might gain traction with everyone on our planet, and hence there would be no threat from inside or outside. However, against a civilisation that has a sense of its own survival and longevity, a liberal civilisation may be an inadequate competitor.

While the Chinese civilisation could have a very strong awareness of itself and its needs, a liberal civilisation in the West may simply be a swarm of wandering individuals who are increasingly disparate, self-interested, and have no thought for whether their own civilisation could or should survive to tomorrow. Invariably, there will be those who will cry out now and claim that the Western liberal civilisation must be defiantly preserved and fought for, but is that not contrary to its own thesis, placing the focus on the individual's happiness? By being synonymous with liberalism, the West is unable to cast off its liberal preferences or put the civilisation's longevity ahead of the individual.

Cultural liberalism as decadence

Perhaps the granting of inordinate liberty to people is indeed decadence, a celebration of vice, which undermines the bonds that held society together and once made it anything worth fighting for. That is certainly what those of a conservative religious mind will tell us. There will always be those of that mind, and their greater moral certitude and reliance on a proven path of tradition may be a kind of inoculation against any peril that could originate from the excessive fixation on individual liberty.

The answer as to whether our current society or civilisation is destined for collapse due to moral decay cannot be asserted by me, but such a situation, even if real, may not be as troubling as it sounds. There are enough reasons to suspect some sort of civilisational collapse could occur, but it is unlikely to happen on a truly global scale or simultaneously in multiple countries.

Despite the globalisation, the world is actually becoming too fragmented for any kind of global failure of society and civilisation, and may even be too fragmented for a shared economic collapse. Countries and regions even within the West are taking quite different courses socially (the French and British approaches to how to manage cultural diversity, or the differences between individual US states on LGBT rights and birth control, for example, are very different).

If conservative worriers about a moral collapse are right, then, to use the metaphor of the Titanic, there is still reason to think the West is large enough and divided into enough compartments to stay afloat in some form. It won't be going down, in whole, even if the worst predictions of moral decay are valid.

Read More »

Is there a case for techno-totalitarianism?

Many decry the informal alliance that exists between governments and technology companies, but is it really necessarily bad? Over time, could high-tech spies actually create a utopia? A kind of good, even if it is born of evil?

If widespread enough, surveillance and transparency could actually create a panopticon of accountability, rearing individuals who respond as if they were under the eye of God. While a world of surveillance can be initially created by a sinister Machiavellian elite, those who grow up in that world of surveillance may become beings of impeccable character, committed to obeying the law.

Being treated harshly as one matures, like being watched, could help to bring about significantly restrained and considerate behaviour. Awareness that we can be caught committing crimes, by small devices we may not be able to see, could encourage a steadfast adherence to the law at all times. It could become so ingrained in us that, even when not being watched, we act as though we are being watched.

Good children of the system

Inevitably, any technology-based totalitarianism would at first experience abuse. Those who establish systems of surveillance aren't always inclined to benevolence, but in fact are more likely to be paranoid and unscrupulous. In such a case, we should expect that they themselves are of dubious moral character, perhaps even of a criminal mindset. They likely did many things in their lives that were dependent upon not being monitored, which perhaps makes their decision to create a monitored society somewhat ironic.

A child who grows up in the monitored world of techno-totalitarianism is the future master of that world, because all men die, including the tyrant. Raised in circumstances that deter or detect all crime and immorality, and establish some punishment for it, the new generation should encounter a filter that ensures only the best of them will qualify to represent authority in that society. Intense background checks, barring those with any criminal history from office, may ensure that only the most morally clean individuals may ascend to power.

By the time the original tyrants who established a system of totalitarian surveillance are gone, and replaced with the children they had raised, those in that new generation may be benevolent to a degree unknown even to current democratic forms of government. They will be those who dissatisfied no-one, were never detected committing any offence, and were at all times loyal.

The unaccountable class

There are many potential pitfalls to a techno-totalitarian system. For one thing, one must at first accept repressive totalitarian rule in the first place, which means enduring a lot of injustice and arbitrary power. Another problem is that such a system is likely to create a kind of static adherence to whatever the last ideology was, which was in a position of influence when the techno-totalitarian system was set up. Any ideology that usurps all power and moral authority will deem the others to be criminal by nature. As such, many of the detained or suppressed in that society may not be criminal at all but simply creative thinkers. Finally, there is also the pitfall of class, wherein the rulers are exempt from all modes of surveillance and accountability for their own crimes while monitoring those of a lower class, and those of the lower class are compelled to goodness because of their lower status, official or unofficial, while those who rule have no such obligation.

Because creating a technological totalitarianism requires somewhat unscrupulous behaviour in the first place, it seems likely that a prospective utopia (the merits of which are actually dubious even if accomplished) will be interrupted by one of the pitfalls above. It is unlikely that bad people take any steps to prevent, in particular, the formation of a class of unaccountable people to govern those who are accountable, when ideally all should be accountable.

Read More »

Does US global responsibility deserve another chance?

The US has seized on what it regards as Russia's breach of international peace and stability to reassert its mantle of responsibility over a just world. Why did America lose this mantle, and is there reason to support this country having another try at some form of global order?

The question isn't really one for European governments or other American client states, but for humanity as a whole. What good would it do, if a country with butterfingers is given another chance to remake the world in its image?

Their own worst enemy

The US has had such free rein for so long that it is the source of most of the security threats in the world today, like some capricious deity responsible for unleashing evil into our world. Remember that the US played a major role in creating the Afghan insurgency that gave rise to al-Qaeda, it armed Saddam Hussein, it sponsored coups, and it inflamed civil wars. It caused chaos in a number of countries such as Syria, giving rise to ISIS.

Just about everywhere the US is able to act freely to make the world a better place, it makes it a worse place. Then, promptly, all media coverage of whatever troubled region we were talking about ends, leaving suffering people behind as the US eyes the next region it intends to operate on - like some mad surgeon with a hundred percent death rate behind him.

Rules-based disorder

At present, we are faced with the apparent collapse of an international "rules-based order", the favoured term of America and its allies when they arbitrarily moralise about international affairs and declare through various media platforms "what must be done" about some problem they happen to find offensive to them. American leaders presume to define good and evil (the current Ukraine narrative), and assign the former label to themselves or US clients in all cases, although in practice good and evil are not typically good assessments of the behaviour of states. The result of this mindset is hardly order but disorder, enmity and the inflammation of crisis everywhere across the world.

There are two big reasons that would compel one to decline America's pleas to be given a second chance as the world's moral arbiter and sole superpower. The first is that of its failures being rooted in its own core identity, such that it is doomed to continue failing and repeating itself indefinitely, because it creates all the alleged problems it hopes to address. The second is that of the character of those who currently guide American foreign policy.

Agents of chaos

America keeps failing to establish "order" because its identity is chaos. Americans are always most glad when they are destroying governments and handing out guns to bandits around the world, in keeping with their own ideas about guns belonging in the hands of random citizens. As a country born from sedition and criminal secession from Britain, the Americans can't help thinking like criminals at the international level and coveting scenes of disorder rather than order.

It is a fundamental part of American liberalism, whether handled from a progressive or conservative angle, that America sides with gun-toting rebels and contras rather than those who maintain the peace. They fail to govern the world because their ideological reverence is not for a body of laws but for chaos and banditry. The romantic urge to recreate the Wild West overpowers their reason, compelling them away from the path of responsibility even if they try to plan otherwise, like some dog unable to resist scratching its flea-ridden hide, no matter the wishes of its owner.

Serial failures

The current American foreign policy establishment is especially underserving of a second chance at creating the "American Century", as they used to call their dream. Every single foreign policy idea they have presented, from the insurgency in Afghanistan in the 1980s to the occupation of Afghanistan of 2001-2021, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, backfired spectacularly and endangered their own country.

The Americans are all too eager to give themselves a second chance at governing the world and creating a stable order. Others should not be so keen to see that.

Read More »