Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Sources, context and bias.

So I got to thinking, somewhat inspired by message board threads about moral standards and applying them equally, about whether or not human rights organisations that denounce certain acts are being objective or speaking in unfair objection toward some when they criticise everyone for the same effects of their acts no matter the justifications any of them give. Is it really, as I believe most would call it, a left wing bias that forms their opinions and guides their standards? I do not know. But nor can I say it is fair even if it is not, let alone is.

I suppose it could be said that death is death. But I cannot look past the moral reasoning behind an action. While many believe that no murder can be justified, not all deaths are murder.

A problem that any organization faces is politicization of its method of criticism. It would be of great risk to credibility to accept one justification over another, especially when the justifying arguments apply to many sides.

I think there is always a risk in using statements from human rights groups, even ones with consistently applied standards. If they criticise everyone, it does not take into account contextual considerations that might, to some, justify acts committed or resulting without intent and, or, desire, by some. But if it does accept one justification, despite stated goals of ending inhumane suffering no matter where it is, it shows partiality which lessens its right to judge others, according to some.

Even when they are being consistent, one could say a bias exists, just not without question one of malice. Perhaps more one without consideration.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click