Tariq Ramadan – Islamic Ethics How we Know Right and Wrong #5B
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Your first question
about you are right.
We need people
coming from the religious
knowledge
are Onama'a'il'n'us'us,
the scholars of the text,
and the people who are involved in the
Please repeat.
Anyway,
the people
when we are bringing together the scholars and
trying to come with a better understanding
between the scholars of the text, and the
practitioners, and the scholars of the context, they
need to have the same, at least, philosophical
concern
or background in a way, or reference.
We have been dealing with this
when I was starting this whole process of
bringing them together.
And my point on this
is the following.
For people coming from the text, they have
it as something which is part of the
old training. It's the ethical concern we need,
even though, as I said, the big picture
or the overall picture is not there.
All the people that we are getting from
the different fields, the different disciplines,
there is one condition,
one condition,
without
which we cannot do anything: they have an
ethical concern.
So they are questioning
what is good and what is bad in
what they are doing.
Whatever
is
their background
Because I saw people being much more caring
about the ethical side
of
their practice or their profession than Muslims in
this.
And we have unfortunately
so many Muslims that are playing with al
Hayal,
you know, tricks
in which way we can play with that.
This is the problem.
So the ethical
is the starting point.
Now, within the discussion
it may appear
that the ethical
priorities are not the same, but this is
good for the discussion,
because it helps you and this is exactly
what I understand
Lita Arofu, is that in which way, by
knowing the priority of others, you understand your
own, why it is put at the level.
I can tell you something. At the European
level, when I was in the
European Committee of Ethics,
you know, the people with whom I was
the closest in many of the discussions
are the Jewish
representatives
and some atheists
in the way they were putting this moral
rationality.
Not always
with, for example,
the discussion about life, with the Christian tradition,
we are not, you know, with contraception and
all this. We were not sharing the same
thing.
But on the other side it was very
interesting,
the legal
framework. But it's very legal. Once again,
the problem is that to avoid this technically.
But what you are saying,
it's very true.
So you cannot just come and bring people
that are expert in their field if they
don't have. So you need to find
in sciences
people who have both expertise
and moral concern, or ethical concern. That's it's
the starting point.
But what I'm saying,
not only Muslims,
not only Muslims, because what some are bringing
into the discussion is very interesting,
very, very interesting in many ways.
The way it was understood once again, this
was a discussion
about,
of Afan Mudar Afa, that some were understanding
Riba.
And this is a discussion. So
the consensus,
almost the consensus which was
discussed by some about Riba, it's Bill Hijma.
The understanding is
when there is not
a good that is used, that money is
creating money through
speculation
or through the fact that there is no
object or good that you are taking, buying
and selling, which is when the means, the
money, is creating or producing the money itself.
So this was also a structure that you
have in the
understanding. Now, you have now people. Mohammed Abdu
was one of the leading
scholars, and now you have Al Judah saying:
No, a reba is not exactly
interest or usury. And in fact, in both
in both,
understanding,
it's the money producing the money,
which is not the mediation
of the good that you have, which is
important. And even in the alternative adaptational,
HD hat that we have, For example, you
are buying a car and you are asking
leasing, for example, you have to ask if
the company is connected to the buyer. So
these are
adjustments
that are more technical than the very essence
of it. Can we
have a system, or can we?
Is it possible, for an Islamic term, that
to have a system which
the money is producing the money through finance
or through the economic system. So reba was
understood as this first. This is the very
essence of it.
But now you have technical definitions that could
be different, and this is why, for example,
Julia is saying that
what we have with the banks today is
not interest.
It's not exactly the same way it was
understood. But if you come to the deep
understanding of why
el alatel
el jorn, which is the raison d'etre of
what it was prohibited,
is what? It is very much
to do with be careful that the means
is serving as a perceived goal and the
means is not the goal of everything.
It is all
about your money,
be it the double or be it just
a small amount of profit. Because
what Mohammed Abdu was saying is that,
he was putting with a percentage.
Under a certain percentage is not arriba, beyond.
I said, no, it's the philosophy of it.
It's the very principle
which is problematic.
And when it was said about Abu Hanifa,
Abu Hanifa, his position
on this, there are interpretations, but mainly he
was the way he was specific
in the economic discussion was also mainly about,
is it possible sometimes to use it? And
he was saying
in Dar al Harb,
it's possible
when you deal with,
in the words
of the time, non Muslim,
in
in a clear agreement and transparency without corruption
because you are in a situation where you
are not a majority, we are in a
minority,
to use
and to go through a rebar in this
very specific situation,
when you are not in the Muslim majority
countries, So when you are in Dar al
Hara. In Dar al Hara you can use
the
rebar and interest
based on a clear contract with the
your partner in the transaction.
What did he say?
And this was the starting point of the
discussion
about could we go for mortgage
in the West when it comes to getting
your
family your house? And some are saying it's
possible. In fact, the European Council is saying
it's possible to protect your goods,
and
the Hanafi
had this fatwa much before. In fact, this
was set in South Africa, and you know
that the South African Muslims are wealthy and
well
established in economic,
in the economic
way in South Africa because of this, because
of the fatwa that they got,
that they can keep and they can use
because they are not in the Muslim majority
countries. So this is where Olamas coming from
India saying this.
The problem is
that the European Council ended up saying, we
are not in Dar el Harb.
And still, we are not in Dar el
Harb, but still we can
but once again
it doesn't work.
The global economy now has much more impact
on people who are living in poor countries
than in here. So how is it that
you are saying to British Muslims, you know
what, you can use mortgage,
use interest to get your house, because it's
not really an Islamic
country, and you go to, Morocco
or to Egypt
or to Pakistan saying, You don't you can't
do this, while the people there are much
more victims of the whole economic system than
us here.
So we are more privileged than them, but
we are not in a Muslim majority country.
Nonsense.
That is not understanding how economy works. It's
the old nation state at with an,
a national,
economic system, which is not no longer the
situation now. When
Karlaoui said this
in Morocco,
he was trying to open up by saying
you can,
for
because of necessity,
because this is also something which is just
unbelievable.
The number of times you hear in any
fatwa, Hajja
darura.
So it's a necessity, it's an imperative that
it's almost everything is possible
because we are under pressure. So this is
the way I was talking about this adaptational
thing. So now,
what you are saying about
short,
you know, I don't want you to get
my point,
what I'm trying to say as dismissing everything
which is done. It's true that you have
to work at that level, the individual and
the collective, short
and long term.
My take on this is that
this approach
could justify sometime
that at the personal level, as a first
step, you go in one direction,
but with one condition.
Is once again to question the final goal
of the whole process.
My problem with,
for example, economic finance and
Islamic economy,
Islamic finance, is
the first step seems to be the final
goal of success, is the measurement is we
are doing as good as them.
I say, I'm sorry, that's not the point.
So translating
a first step of
reform
towards a first step of adaptation,
that's problematic.
This is why I have a problem, in
all these fields. And I can tell you,
having, you know, I don't know how many
hours now dealing with all these colors,
short and long run, they are they are
speaking like this very often. They say, no,
no, no, no.
It's the first step.
We are good. We are on track.
And you can see in their understanding in
the whole thing,
in fact, the first step is the final
step,
that there is nothing on the wrong ground
which is questioning this, because really this is
a sense of helplessness
in the way they are dealing with the
economic system,
to the point that you are Islamizing capitalism.
So
the question is deeper than that. But I
agree
with first steps. For example, when I was
dealing with I wrote a forward for the
first production of
Majlissel
Ropele, if that well, they were not happy
with my
introduction
by saying, it's good it's the first step,
when they were talking about fear of minority.
I say, it couldn't be the final step.
And they have been working now for 12
years. The great majority of the European Muslims,
they don't even know what they are talking
about, far from the Muslims. It's in Arabic.
No one is reading.
It's translated 1 or 2 volumes now, while
they have 10 at least. But at the
end, what was presented as a first step,
it's and they are just changing words. They
say, oh, it's no longer now a firk
of minorities it's firk of citizenship.
Firk and Mu'athana.
What does it mean exactly? So what I'm
saying here is that
this understanding of long run, short run, individual
and collective, and that what you are saying
to somebody
could be useful for him or for her,
that's true, but we have to be clear
on because this is misleading. The second point
that you were saying or mentioning here
was about
whatever is the situation,
a personal fatwa is a personal fatwa, and
by definition a fatwa is personal.
So whatever is happening now with the means,
for example, it's on the Internet, a fatwa
was given to somebody,
a fatwa is a legal opinion for
1 person in one situation at what time.
That could be changed if the environment is
changing, but this
couldn't be exported to somebody else.
And the scholars would be very clear on
this, and even the people who are getting
the fatwa.
The fact is that now with what we
call Sheik Google or
I don't know who it was.
Recently I
heard for the first time share
Instagram, so I didn't know that you have
another way.
That's the reality. The problem is that
the conditions, the requirements are lost in
this. Even
in getting fatwa from scholars who are not
with us,
it's strong, Islamically speaking. We need to have
people coming from here and living with our
environment,
not living far from this. So the fact
that this is happening now is not undermining
the very essence of what
a fatwa is.
But what
I said yesterday, it's important, be careful with
this overemphasizing
the role of the fatwa in our life.
So,
too many fatwa
and at the same time not enough
understanding of the whole question. And at the
end, we have an obsession with the fatwa
for the details, not understanding
the whole
the overall problem.
What I was saying,
I was not saying that, where are you?
Ethical.
You know, I have been studying a lot,
and I went to visit
many projects at the grassroots level in Africa
and in Latin America.
And mainly when I was in Brazil.
This was in
the 80s 90s,
and then in Africa.
What I saw at the grassroots level, and
then even from here in Switzerland, I was
in touch with many organizations that are promoting
ethical
finance, ethical investment.
In many
of their concerns and their projects,
it's
completely
acceptable from an Islamic viewpoint.
This is it.
I would like
halal
or Islamic finance and Islamic economy
to be
ethical
and not technical.
Ethical.
So there are
things that are done by Muslims that are
very ethical, but I would say I I
think that we need to learn more about
ethical investment, ethical finance,
and to take, and to give, and to
see how our means
because, you know, when you sit with people
in the economic field and some who are
in the ethical,
in ethical finance, when you speak about them
and say, what are the requirements coming from
Islam when it comes to a zakat, the
right of the poor, when it comes to
refusing speculation, they are amazed. They say: That's
exactly it.
So we have to implement this once again
with the vision. So sometimes when you sit
with
our partners on this, they bring the vision,
and we can bring the means.
And we share.
And this is what I meant by saying
I saw so many things. In microfinance, I
saw Muslims using microfinance in a very capitalistic
way. What is, you
know,
Mohammed Yunus, for example, it's very interesting, but
you have to be critical because there is
a way of dealing with it which is
problematic as well.
But at least there is an attempt. He's
opening up
something, so we need to find
but to reject everything, I don't think it's
the right way of doing it.
And then about
I
agree with you more than I'm sorry.
I'm not using Islamic medicine. I'm not using
Islamic finance. I'm saying there is Islamic ethics
in finance and in medicine.
But I
would understand somebody telling me: You know what?
If it's as serious as you are saying
that you are questioning the paradigm,
it might be that in the way we
are going to put Islamic medicine, it's in
fact what we are saying is that we
are questioning the paradigm, that there's something which
is specifically Islamic.
And that's true.
Why I don't call it Islamic medicine? Because
I think that questioning the paradigm should not
be done only in Islamic terms it's on
ethical terms. So I would say Islamic
ethics in medicine
to be able to deal with
physicians who are not Muslims or from other
faiths who are going to question the paradigm.
So I'm going to enter into your discussion
now. I guess the point is,
So make make your discussion public. Let's go.
Let us that's a good question, and we
will,
then we'll go for medicine. But this is
a very important question, and I think that
we have to
clarify the whole thing.
When it comes to values
and ethics and morality,
there is an Islamic ethics.
There is. There is something which is clearly
coming from the Koran, was sunnah,
welcome.
And then
what we are saying is that
what is universal for us these values are
universal,
for us, from where we are. But in
our journey
towards
other religions,
we acknowledge the fact that for them and
for us
the only values that are going to be
considered as universal are the shared universal values,
shared.
So for me they are universal, but I
can understand that for you it's not. It's
this intellectual empathy that you put yourself, It's
what I'm talking about in the first chapter
of the quest for meaning, is this the
universal.
So this is one.
Now, so
we have
universal
or you have Islamic values and Islamic ethics.
Now, when it comes to science,
what is Islamic in the way we deal
with
science?
Every single sign
is dealing with an object,
and the way you are going to be
fair with the object as to your way
of understanding object, setting the methodology,
trying to find,
or to discover the reality. This is Islamic
per se because you are reading
the world.
But
the way it's done by people who are
not,
for or the other
religion,
For us it is Islamic fraud. There is
just objective science.
But for us, any objective way of dealing
with the real for us is the only
way we have to do it as Muslims.
But we don't have to put Islam everywhere.
And there is a difference between qualifying the
values that are giving the orientation to all
the
goals that should be Islamic, because they are
based on the values,
and accepting the means. All the means for
us are Islamic, but we are not qualifying
them because they are between the source and
the goal, which is in al Ilah, in
in
between. This is something that we are sharing
with the people.
So, for example,
when I see people who are very, very
skilled in the way they deal with their
field,
for me the way they are doing it,
this is why it's Islamic. To the point,
for example, I have been,
for 7 years
teaching philosophy.
Teaching an object
and intellectuals and philosophers were saying exactly the
opposite of what I was thinking.
So some were coming to me and saying,
what do you do with this? Do you
influence them? Do you make dawah?
What is my dawah?
What is Islamic in what I am doing
as a teacher?
What I have to do, and this is
coming not from me it's a very old
Islamic tradition, is that when you deal with
a thought which is not yours and you
have to teach the thought, you have to
present it as it is, not what you
think of it.
So this is what Nietzsche is saying. This
is Heathrow.
And the way the students are going to
see that you are ethical
is the way you teach, not what you
think.
And in fact, in the way you teach,
it's what you
think. You think that you have to be
honest with the object.
You have to be honest with what you
are teaching.
So I can teach
the worst theory
in a very honest way.
I'm honest with
rubbish.
No. But get me right. This is very
important. What I think is rubbish, but this
is honesty is just this is what he
thinks. And you go very far
in the way you can you can find
in what the the the philosophers are saying.
It's exactly the same in all the fields.
Now, the obsession of putting Islamic at the
beginning, in the middle, everywhere, at the end,
that's
a colonization of inferiority complex.
So this was your answer to her? You
are happy?
Okay. I I I will I'm going to
be diplomat. I agree with with both of
you.
Okay.
Medicine?
We have time? Or yeah? Yeah. I just
want to add another question that's related
to medicine
from online.
It says, I have a question
about your view or,
what's been discussed in
on whether genetic modification
of an embryo to remove disease or provide
patients specific organs is acceptable?
Say it again.
Whether genetic modification
of embryos
to remove disease
or provide patient specific organs
is acceptable.
Yes. Okay.
Is this a personal or a public public?
Sorry? Is this Is this going to be
a personal or a public network?
What I'm going to say.
I'm repeating what they say.
Trying to protect myself.
That's it?
But I I we can take other questions,
and I will because this is medicine.
Medication
and challenging the,
pharmaceutical multinational companies with regards to this, obviously,
with, historically, the way HIV and AIDS
emerged,
there's a massive stigma around it and especially
amongst the Muslims. Obviously, we're still here until
today,
punishment for a certain lifestyle,
which, of course, is completely anti
completely outdated, especially in the case of South
Africa. It doesn't apply anymore because the majority
of transmissions are from mother to child. But
how can we challenge that stigma
that surrounds it in order to be able
to
get the people active. And is not also
race is a part of it as well
because a vast majority of people are,
are black South Africans who are suffering from
this disease.
Good question. Thank you. Just to say, look,
at the time, we're extending this a little
bit like yesterday and we'll make up, for
the lunchtime. So we don't want
to
Say say can you speak?
So on the first one, on genetic modification,
There was there were lots of discussions among
the scholars and the committees
on this.
And, for example, when it came to
cloning or genetic modification,
when it comes to therapy and therapeutic
modification, this is something that was accepted by
the great majority of the scholars,
when the goal is about
therapy
and helping. The problem is, once again, if
you don't get the whole picture, you are
opening a door here where who is going
to decide what are the limits? If you
open that door,
which
is so what
is always the case with the fatwa is
a case per case, and I cannot we
cannot give one answer for all. It has
to be case per case. In some situation
the modification
could be something which is manageable, which is
known and understood, and it could have an
impact on health.
Now, the only fact that you are
in that field opening the door for genetical
modification
is something which is very dangerous.
Because if you say yes to the first,
you are going to have to deal with
the whole picture of it. But mainly the
position of
the scholars on this have been
in terms of therapy
helping to cure.
This is something which is
possible
if
the risks
are
manageable
and it's understood that you know exactly
and the
goal and the final result is under control.
But the principle of it has been
accepted
in many ways
or in many fields
instead.
So
to remove the disease
when it's under control.
The other question about generic
medication
and
what you were
saying,
That's completely true.
The problem that we have with AIDS is
the immoral
qualification
of the disease, and
I had it, you know, close to me
in so many ways when I was in
South Africa, when I was dealing with, you
know, I was in Mauritius and they came
to me and said
there is a woman who has AIDS and
she wants to see something. Nobody wants to
go there. She was completely isolated. And 2
things were there that you mentioned.
The first is
the moral qualification.
And
with I went there for training medical doctors
in South Africa
and to keep on repeating
a patient,
whatever is his or her disease,
has no religion,
and you have no moral
judgment to make on from where it comes.
And, you know, afterward I saw this I
don't know if you heard about this movie
which is based on a real story
of this Egyptian woman
who got ill through her husband who was
in jail.
She didn't
do anything wrong,
so it was not homosexuality,
it was not,
adultery, it was not immoral.
She got it in a very halal way.
And she went to the TV, and she
she had to go for
a treatment, and she didn't have the money.
And there was a TV program
asking the people to help,
in order for her to go for the
treatment.
And she went to the TV producer, and
he told her, Yes, but we have one
condition
is you say from where
it came. How do you did you get
it?
And she looked at him say, no.
That's none of your business.
I'm sick.
I have it. I don't have anything to
say to anybody.
She was
getting it in a halal way.
But the principle of
having to justify
why you are sick was, and she passed
away out of this. She didn't get the
treatment.
And this story is revealing
the distorted mindset of this judgmental way the
Muslims are dealing
with some of the
diseases or some of
the behaviors that we have within our society.
So I would say
a doctor
should not ask
from where,
should not
express
moral judgment, and the only thing that you
have today is to help.
So you don't ask about the color, you
don't ask about the origin, and you don't
ask about the money normally.
Add to this the second thing,
which once again I keep on repeating, there
is no way and no space for racism
in Islam.
But unfortunately,
there is so much racism
against Muslims,
or among Muslims,
and that's exactly it.
It's the way we look at it. It's,
oh, African
country,
African people, poor people,
and dismissive,
rejecting,
unacceptable,
unacceptable.
So once again here you see how the
picture is big. It has to do with
economics.
It has to do with culture.
It has to do with the sense of
humanity.
All of you, you are from Adam, and
all of you, you have the same origin.
Be humble and just try to avoid racism.
But we have racism in the way we
deal with medicine,
in the way even we avoid talking about
some problems, because it's as if it's not
us, it's them.
And with this,
they deserve it,
because there is no morality,
and it's homosexuality.
So disqualification
is just unacceptable.
And we need to have a very clear
discourse on this. As much as I was
talking about the environment, when it comes to
this, that's unacceptable.
Unacceptable. The fact that you cannot you can't
say in our community
that you have it and and
or that you are experiencing this. And in
some countries it's as if it's the worst
thing that you can get,
Not because you are sick,
but because you are judged
as an
immoral person,
and doubtful,
or suspicious.
That's not acceptable. And I think that this
is where the medical doctor, the physicians, and
the community, the Muslims, brothers and sisters, should
come with a stronger
take on this discussion.
And this is why also we are not
involved in the priority of what
are the generic
medications
and how we have to deal with this,
and to promote the drugs in a way
which is more
with more social
and justice and economic justice.
Your question is a very important one. And
once again it's exactly like we have, you
know, in
when it comes to
genetic
modification,
is
it's all a question of probability
and risks that we have in this situation.
Is it possible? I don't know who asked
this question it was coming from there.
So how do we have to deal? So
you have to
balance the risk
and what is possible. In the situation where
you have this information
and you can have them
soon, and sometimes it's coming late.
For some scholars, the fact that
you have to take into account many things,
starting with the 2 ahadis:
40 days or
120 days. So some are saying up to
120
days we can go for it,
which is a problem. 120
days, it's a lot.
Now this is the first assessment.
2nd is what do we know and what
are the probability
of
survival? Yes and no.
2nd, about the family and what is going
to be the life of the potential
child in this family, and are they going
to be able to bear it and to
give him at least the support?
These are conditions that are, for some scholars,
are very important when it comes to abortion
and when it comes to where are we,
which decision are we taking.
So, it's a case per case, but what
could be yes for 1 is going to
be no for the other, depending
on so many factors. So, we have to
be careful.
You know,
I'm saying this.
In the book
Radical Reform, and then I repeated this in
many books,
We have one statement which is the general
statement in Islam.
We
are not for abortion except in one situation
when when the life of the mother is
at risk.
This is the general statement.
Now, be careful. In Islam,
we don't have an authority saying everything else
is forbidden. For example, remember in Bosnia,
where you have the scholars saying: After
*,
is it possible to go for it? Some
scholars say, no,
the baby is not yours.' And others say,
'Yes.'
And some say, 'Yes, you can.' And others
say, yes, do it straight away if you
can't have
an intervention
the day after or straight after, because with
the drug of the following day you can
prevent this from so
we have 3 or 4 different opinions,
meaning that with abortion, yes, there is this
general statement which is in fact a rational,
accepted
no one is celebrating
abortion, saying, yes, we are happy.
No. Even the people who are saying yes
to abortion are saying, I know it's not.
It could have an impact on my life,
but I should have the right to go
for it if
it's a situation where there is a necessity.
From an Islamic viewpoint,
our way of dealing with abortion is so
much case per case that you have to
take all this into account that we to
be very cautious with any
legal decision
saying that the nation state is
forbidden for all.
So I was asked once to support a
movement saying, because this was a situation in
in the,
in Belgium, say go and we are against
abortion. Say no, I'm not going to take
that stand.
What is said by the Christian tradition is
not what Islam is saying. Islam is saying
abortion is not good.
Abortion is a case per case, but abortion
is
accepted only when the mother is at risk.
But there are so many other situations when
you have to discuss, when you have to
go, and you have to assess, that you
cannot just say it's a complete no.
I'm not taking this decision, this position, because
this position is putting us in a situation
where we are supporting
other religious trends that are not our way
of dealing with abortion.
The fact that on this this is something
which is very important, because even in the
way we are dealing with the fat one
abortion,
we have to take into account good life,
final goal, what is going to happen with
the family. All these things are part of
what the scholars were talking about centuries ago.
So why are we now coming on the
defensive and saying, it's haram? No. Don't you
say don't say this, and don't say we
need a and I said this in Morocco.
I said this in Morocco when they were
talking about, you know,
abortion is haram. I said, no. No. No.
No. No. I'm sorry. That, first, is not
the right word. And, second, our legal Islamic
tradition is not saying it's all haram, we
go and we study,
and we take into account all the factors.
So we don't have a legal,
a national legal thing prohibiting it in a
way which is
pushing
women
to go underground, because this is not going
to work.
So
about your drugs,
improving creativity?
No, I think that
the very essence of drugs is once again,
it's
to help you to recover,
well something, but to improve and to push.
And for example,
there are no limits on this.
So some scholars would tell you, in fact,
anything that you are taking that has no
impact on your lucidity, on your awareness,
that's fine.
I don't accept that.
I think anything that you are taking to
help to improve, and there is something that
is needed
for you. But
to improve your intellectual
capacity or your imagination,
I think that shouldn't this shouldn't be done
by drugs. It should be done by training.
It should this is also something that we
don't always know
which type of impact these drugs are going
to have on your mind and your imagination,
because some of them are even creating this
kind of addiction to the point that when
you don't take them, you need them.
So it's creating something,
and the risk here is huge. So I
wouldn't go that way.
If you need
an open fatwa,
there we
are. Last one,
What you said is interesting
because this is exactly where we are.
In
our,
our
international
conference this year,
You you might be able to follow the
conference through, we are making it live stream.
This will be the 1st weekend of April.
This is exactly what we are
studying,
conflicting values.
How do you deal with this?
Because this is the reality.
For example,
it came from
what was said by Sheikh Mennbajah
when he was in the United Nation.
I have a great deal of respect
towards him, but I cannot agree with what
he said.
I think it's unacceptable.
When you have Joe Biden and the United
States of America in front of you, you
don't tell them,
we go for peace and we forget about
justice. We don't want to talk about justice.
What's the starting point of everything? There will
be no there will be no peace if
there is no justice.
But the two values could be conflicting.
When you go for peace,
how do you deal with justice? Do you
sometimes have to compromise on justice to get
peace?
And it's everywhere the same. Sometimes you are
doing something
with a good ethical intention, and you do
that the impact. So everything here is going
to be a balance. You have
to go to assessing the situation.
So there is nothing in ethics which is
black and white.
Yes, there are things that are black and
white.
But you know this example coming from the
State Department.
Are you for torture or not?
Do you promote torture?
It's a question.
No, you are against.
In all case,
all situation?
Yes.
Well,
well what?
Now are you
against
torture in every single situation, or could you
justify torture in some?
You can? No, but
are you promoting torture or not?
Sorry?
You want to question the question? You want
to question the question? No, you can't.
How do you you want to question the
question?
Yes?
I don't know.
Let let me finish my story. I'm asking.
No, don't question my question before I end
my story.
I'm just asking you a question: Are you
defending torture or not?
Are you when you talk you think about
it before I say my story,
could you imagine
a situation where you condone or you accept
torture?
So who are saying yes?
You can't promote torture. No what?
What does it mean? Never.
And those who are saying sometimes it's good,
or sometimes it's acceptable,
not it's good.
Some people would consider some of these punishments
to be torture. No, no.
No, no. I'm not talking about punishment. I'm
talking about torturing somebody to get information.
Physical torture. Always wrong? Okay. Now, always wrong?
Okay. Now,
now
I'm a terrorist.
I've heard this. We did this politics, don't
know. No, no, let me, let me. I
want you to
so you know but they don't.
Now I want your answer.
I know people who are going
to kill or
there is a bomb
in the
the building,
and I know where where are the people.
I didn't even know where is the bomb.
It's going to explode.
And you are
gentle,
but I am not responding to your gentle
questions.
It's going to
explode in 1 hour.
What do you do?
No, but
no, no. That's an easy answer. Now, I
know that the bomb is going to explode
you. You don't know where.
No.
No.
No.
We I know where it is. You don't.
It's in 1 hour it's going to explode.
So you can't call you can't call anybody.
What do you do?
Can you torture me to know to to
to know why it is?
No. It could still lie. Sorry? It could
still lie. Yeah. But yes. But
of course. But on the torture, it depends
where
so my question is, possible or not?
Sorry?
Sorry?
That I am not what?
Sorry.
What?
No. You no.
Again, now.
You should study legal tradition,
the tricks and the hair, just to try
to avoid my question.
I know.
I know.
I know.
I'm going to take the Egyptian way. Bassebel.
I know.
So what do you do with me?
What do you do with me? I know.
Life's not And you know.
And it's certain you know that I know.
Sorry?
So you torture me?
Sorry?
That's it. So it's
a probability.
Just let us
you know that I know
they are going to die.
3000
people.
I'm my own.
I'm nice. I'm not going to
speak. Now, who in this room is saying
you can't torture?
No, no. You can. You can.
Just raise your hand, please.
So, yes.
Who in this room is saying never ever?
So, yeah.
Now you are putting the emotional pain.
No.
You don't know where it's going to know.
It's going to be you can't know you
know where you don't know where is your
father is.
So
stop it here. Just that's,
that's a point where
sometimes
can you use unethical
means
for an ethical goal?
The ethical goal is your life
is less than theirs,
so I can do it to you,
because I'm savvy.
Some scholars and some philosophers would say, never.
And some others say, you can't say that
you are against torture in this situation.
It will be irrational and injust
for all the people who are going to
die not to do it on 1 to
save
1,000.
So that's a discussion where,
in the legal field, in the ethical field,
it's all a question of balancing and trying
to find the position. There is no final
answer. Even among scholars,
the priority
is going to be,
could be determined in different ways. For example,
the discussion that we had in France about
the headscar.
For example,
it's ethical to get your education.
You are facing an ethical law telling you
you don't go to school. At the end,
if you want to get the knowledge, which
is a priority, do you go to the
school without the headscarf, or you follow
the Islamic principles by not going?
Some scholars say, never
don't remove the headscarf.
And others say,
you
know, school is much more important than the
headscarf for this
specific period of time. So you go to
school, and then you put the headscarf afterward.
It's balancing the whole thing. It's ethical and
legal at the same time. But your question
is very important because this is where,
you show that it's
complex.