www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini... [Geer 3x, Recktenwald 2x]
nettime's ping pong on Mon, 24 May 2004 11:10:14 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini... [Geer 3x, Recktenwald 2x]




Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty                
     Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>                                             

   Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty                
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>                                          

   Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty                
     Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>                                             

   Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty                
     Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>                                             

   Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty                
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>                                          



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 23:54:29 +0100
From: Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty

Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> But AMNESTY is NOT an application of law,
> but a political question. It needs a political answer.

I don't understand you here.  It seems to me that amnesty is not a 
'question'; rather it is an answer to what is perceived to be a 
political problem.

Exactly what political problem do you think amnesty for Battisti is 
going to solve?  Please be specific.

> If you think your cases are equal, well, but as a political answer they
> are not convincing.

If the best attempt you can make at refuting my arguments is simply to 
assert that they are not convincing, why not simply admit that you have 
no justification for your position?

I am reminded of something Terry Eagleton wrote recently in the _New 
Statesman_:

'Talking about the Kurds with some Istanbul intellectuals, one 
occasionally feels that brief, sudden drop in intelligence - as palpable 
as a sudden fall in room temperature - which occurs when ideology 
momentarily intervenes to blur the discourse of otherwise enlightened 
people.'

That's exactly my impression of what has been happening to leftist 
intellectuals attempting to defend Battisti.

Ben


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:48:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty

Hi,

On Sat, 22 May 2004, Benjamin Geer wrote:

> Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> > But AMNESTY is NOT an application of law,
> > but a political question. It needs a political answer.
>
> I don't understand you here.  It seems to me that amnesty is not a
> 'question'; rather it is an answer to what is perceived to be a
> political problem.

No ;-) Amnesty is the political question, and it is not an answer to a
political, but a human problem, as allways.
We have had similar cases here in germany, I think they are similar.

>
> Exactly what political problem do you think amnesty for Battisti is
> going to solve?  Please be specific.
>
> > If you think your cases are equal, well, but as a political answer they
> > are not convincing.
>
> If the best attempt you can make at refuting my arguments is simply to
> assert that they are not convincing, why not simply admit that you have
> no justification for your position?

It is just the "what is an amnesty" problem.
It has nothing to do with what you think it is, it goes beyond.

And it has something to do with time.


Best, H.


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:12:04 +0100
From: Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty

Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> No ;-) Amnesty is the political question, and it is not an answer to a
> political, but a human problem, as allways.
> 
>>If the best attempt you can make at refuting my arguments is simply to
>>assert that they are not convincing, why not simply admit that you have
>>no justification for your position?
> 
> It is just the "what is an amnesty" problem.
> It has nothing to do with what you think it is, it goes beyond.
> 
> And it has something to do with time.

It seems that you have lost all interest in presenting rational 
arguments that someone besides you might be able to understand, and that 
you are now reduced to speaking in riddles.  This is often the last 
resort of those in whom ideology has stifled rational thought.

Ben


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 00:13:32 +0100
From: Benjamin Geer <ben {AT} socialtools.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty

Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> Well, my point is, believe it or not, that amnesty has nothing to do with
> ratio ;-)
> 
> It is more a thing of the heart.
> So it is exactly your "rationality" that I am "attacking"

OK, that's an argument I can understand.  But there's a problem.  The 
concept of amnesty implies that it should be granted in some cases but 
not in others.  Imagine that you are a judge, and that it is your 
responsibility to decide who should receive amnesty and who should not. 
  Can you, in good conscience, simply say: 'I like X, therefore I will 
give him amnesty, but I don't like Y, therefore I will not give him 
amnesty'?  Is it ethical to *simply* follow the dictates of your heart? 
  I think not.  Your heart may require you to grant someone amnesty 
because his nose reminds you of your father's nose, but it would be 
irresponsible to do so.

I am one of those who thinks that ethics ultimately rests on an 
emotional foundation.  But emotions cannot, by themselves, be an 
adequate guide to ethical decision-making.  We may, for emotional 
reasons, agree that it is important to be fair.  But in real conflicts 
like this one, people disagree on what is fair, because they are swayed 
by other sorts of emotions: greed, hubris, loyalty to their clan, etc. 
If the best course of action in any given situation is determined only 
by each individual's feelings, then such conflicts cannot be resolved. 
A solution is possible only if we accept that, to determine what is 
fair, reasons, justifications and critiques must be brought into play, 
and that reason will be the final arbiter.

In this case, I am suggesting that the hearts of many leftists support 
Battisti mainly because they see him as belonging to their group.  The 
desire to defend a member of one's own group, at any cost, is certainly 
understandable, but it is incompatible with any sort of workable 
coexistence with other human beings.

Ben


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 05:21:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Negri with Ballestrini  to Battisti and on amnesty

Hi,

> not in others.  Imagine that you are a judge, and that it is your

Sorry, again, NO!

It is not a judge, who decides on amnesty or not, it is the head of state,
at least here, maybe in Italy too.


> responsibility to decide who should receive amnesty and who should not.
>   Can you, in good conscience, simply say: 'I like X, therefore I will
> give him amnesty, but I don't like Y, therefore I will not give him
> amnesty'?  Is it ethical to *simply* follow the dictates of your heart?
>   I think not.  Your heart may require you to grant someone amnesty
> because his nose reminds you of your father's nose, but it would be
> irresponsible to do so.
>
> I am one of those who thinks that ethics ultimately rests on an
> emotional foundation.  But emotions cannot, by themselves, be an
> adequate guide to ethical decision-making.  We may, for emotional
> reasons, agree that it is important to be fair.  But in real conflicts

But not by judging only the case but also the surroundings. Civil war or
not, what is a civil war in a civilised state? This case is long ago, it
was political, it is time to make peace. You can execute law forever,
but in certain situations other aspects of civilisation get more
important. I dont say that there must be amnesty in this case, maybe
the guy was an asswhole, but it should be considered, those who speak for
amnesty should be taken serious.

And no, I dont think ethics should be based on emotions ;-)

Amnesty or not is a serious topic!

> In this case, I am suggesting that the hearts of many leftists support
> Battisti mainly because they see him as belonging to their group.  The

But this would be ok!

> desire to defend a member of one's own group, at any cost, is certainly
> understandable, but it is incompatible with any sort of workable
> coexistence with other human beings.

No, societies dont work this way.

Best,

H.

>
> Ben
>


------------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net