Selective Morality: When Politics Determines the Value of Life
Selective Morality: When Politics Determines the Value of Life
A country can drop food from helicopters to save animals from starvation; yet that same country remains silent in the face of massacres, the destruction of families, and the violation of Muslims’ rights. This contradiction is no longer merely a humanitarian issue; it is a political and moral issue.
The question is not why food is given to animals. On the contrary, animal welfare is a sign of respect for life, and there is nothing wrong with that. The real question is why this respect for life is not applied equally to all people in the foreign policies of many governments.
If the life of an animal is valuable, how can the life of a human being be valued based on their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or political affiliation?
This raises the issue of human rights; a concept that, in principle, should transcend political borders and national interests. Yet in practice, human rights have become a tool that is defended loudly in one place and suddenly, as soon as the victim is Muslim or the government in question is in conflict with its political allies, gives way to a moral issue.
The question of human rights arises here; a concept that should transcend political borders and national interests. This is a dangerous contradiction.
On the one hand, public funds cannot be allocated to save the lives of animals while, on the other hand, the deaths of millions of people are justified as “the consequences of war,” “security concerns,” or “political necessity.” Such rhetoric may politically justify death, but it does not make it morally justifiable.
This is not only about Muslims; it is about the nature of humanity. If the value of a Muslim’s life is ignored today because of their religion, tomorrow the same logic can be applied to any other human being. True morality only has meaning when the victim does not belong to one’s own political camp.
Governments may have their national interests, allies, enemies, and geopolitical calculations. But none of these should determine which people are worthy of compassion and which should be silenced.
The fundamental question is this: Do these countries truly believe in the value of life, or do they speak of morality only when it does not conflict with their political interests?
Perhaps this is more than simply deceiving people. Sometimes governments become so deeply involved in their own propaganda and political interests that they themselves come to believe the same narrative in order to justify their actions.
But the simple truth is this: people are people.
If we feel obligated to save an animal, we cannot remain indifferent to human suffering. And if human rights are truly a moral principle, they should not depend on the nationality, religion, or political affiliation of the victim.
The problem in today’s world is not a lack of moral slogans; the problem is a morality that bows before political power.
And this is precisely the question that must be asked of governments: If the value of human life is a principle for you, why is it not always applied equally to all people?
Author: Gouya Roshan
All rights reserved.

Comments
Post a Comment