I suppose it’s time I offered an opinion on the Oslo massacre. I’m never been much of a devotee of contemporary, up to the minute, news articles as they have a tendency to be filled with conjecture and hearsay. Give me history any day, when the facts are more-or-less established and the experts have rendered their analysis to parchment.
As such, I enter this discussion with a personal air of intrigue and mischief, offering opinions so soon after the fact. Why? Well, because I have a personal and somewhat mercenary interest in the events of the last few days. Our own Ellie Haycock is already booked to attend the World Humanist Congress, that is (or was?) to take place in Oslo, in a few weeks time; and I myself – dithering as I do – have yet to make a decision on whether or not to go too.
This could be for any number of reasons, the most likely one being concern for my own safety, but as I’m not directly privy to that information, I can only conjecture. Indeed I haven’t been so unsure as to my own motivations (or lack of them), since I decided to become vegetarian several months back.
Personal cowardice seems the most primal and therefore the most likely cause, but there is also a sense of ambivalence over attending the congress that predates recent events. I am fast becoming an impoverished student and one that is – perhaps unusually – apathetic to travel. I have never caught a plane or lived in a foreign country on my own, which could itself be another source of fear, enhancing and inflating that of the terrorist attack.
Yet, if we let fear govern our actions we let the terrorists win, as a friend informs me. A glib sentiment when one is not the principle agent of the choice on the table, but a compelling one, nevertheless. I am a firm proponant of the sentiment - often attributed to Edmund Burke - that: all it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing. The trouble is, I was never wholly intent on going in the first place, but now – for ideological reasons – I feel compelled to attend, to show the flag and do what I feel to be right, regardless of all prior considerations. I'm staring into a deep chasm and am tempted to jump!
There is a real danger here analogous to that of Anders Behring Breivik himself, the danger of making a knee-jerk, irrational and polar-decision based on sentiment and ideological frustration. In his case it was to kill innocent people to highlight his ideological concerns, in my case I now feel compelled to reciprocate in the most obvious and formulaic manner to juxtapose this madness at the risk of expending resources that I can not afford to lose.
The comparison seems trivial but I think they are logically equivalent; we are both jumping to an extreme to ensure that our ideologies are acknowledged, the only difference is one of degree. I expend money to validate my views, where as Breivik expends lives. Of course, the latter is morally repugnant, abhorrent, diabolical; but that does not affect the logic of the respective scenarios.
It is this desire to assume the polar opposite position of people and ideologies we find despicable that drives us into folly. In an article today, neurologist and renowned horseman of New Atheism, Sam Harris speculated that this incident will be the trigger to a whole new round of apologetics in favour of Islam by moral relativists who call themselves liberals. People who will defend Sharia Law and the rights of Muslim extremists to belittle, beat, torture, maim and murder women, children and homosexuals in the name of cultural diversity. – A knee-jerk reaction to one deluded, right-wing, Christian, terrorist; who himself took a violent, knee-jerk reaction against those he saw as enemies of the Christian-West; expounding his own dogmas in blood, bombs and bullets in the best traditions of religious extremism.
In the words of Penn Jillette, “The lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” – We need to recognise that swinging, pendulously, between extremes like some morally grotesque human-tabloid, may be easy, even intuitive, but that does not make it right. Reason and evidence, applied in the most unbiased and objective manner, is – as ever – far superior to decisions based on emotionalism, sentiment and faith. Had we been built by any sane creator, the former would naturally precede the latter; but we are not. We are evolved survival machines, prejudiced, simplistic and crude; but we have, through natural selection, developed faculties that outstrip those baser instincts. – It’s long past time they became ubiquitous throughout society.