what i have been thinking about when i should be studying for my exam on this thursday

whether to help your relative selamat to hide from the authorities isnt an issue that can be solved morally or ethically. or even religiously. according to the imam there is some koranic reference that forbids aiding the escape of a criminal. but the koran is a voluminous tome that is not always crystal clear, so there probably exists some passages that can be used to claim aid for this relative selamat. the fact that there are so many terrorists who all claim some reference from somewhere is testament to this fact. and what they say about the bible, another abrahamic religion, that the devil can quote passages for his own ends, also holds true for the koran. just as the hardliners like to read it their way, the imam is also reading it his way.

it is hard to not assist a relative. even if the relative might have done something that society at large considers reprehensible. it is hard when the responsibility to the greater good and the responsibility to the family comes into conflict. and just as one cannot be sure that selamat is right or wrong, one cannot be sure if what society does is right or wrong. to use a lame example, whites used to enslave the blacks, something that we have come to consider as inhumane. at the time of nazi germany, probably some thought that it was morally just and ethically sound to gas the jews. i am quite sure there were at least as many true nazi collaborators as there were resistance fighters.

and socrates was put to death by his people, for what was considered some sort of poisoning of the minds of the athenian youths. which does not seem to make much sense today. of course i wont draw parallels between socrates and him, but it is difficult for an individual, especially relatives or close associates, like plato for the former and the niece of the latter, to completely accept the rightness of the society. and society isnt always right too.

of course some will point to the fact that it is unacceptable that we tolerate in our society people who are intolerant of others, of people who are willing to kill others for the cause of their warped utopia. that is true too. but what if it is utilitarian that some must die so the others may live better? dont we always force this logic of sacrifice down the throats of our soldiers who have died on flanders fields, on the marne and elsewhere all over? that some morally reprehensible monsters must die?

an ethical answer is hard to arrive at. instead all that they should do to prevent others from harboring their relatives is to dole out draconic penalties. as long as the moral payoff of harboring a wanted relative is lower than the material payoff of not harboring the relative, the chance of a similar occurence will be diminished. i am quite sure that just as the imam and the other religious leaders have moral authority, these terrorists might also be effective ethicists so it becomes difficult. tough life.