Anti-Climacus

SOLIDARITY AS A FOUNDATIONAL VIRTUE:

"There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear?"

-Leon Trotsky, For a Workers' United Front

"The Bolshevik does not ask the Social Democrat to alter the opinion he has of Bolshevism and of the Bolshevik press. Moreover, he does not demand that the Social Democrat make a pledge for the duration of the agreement to keep silent on his opinion of Communism. Such a demand would be absolutely inexcusable. "So long," says the Communist "as I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me, we shall criticize each other with full freedom, each using the arguments and expressions he deems necessary. But when the fascist wants to force a gag down our throats, we will repulse him together!" Can an intelligent Social Democratic worker counter this proposal with a refusal?"

-Leon Trotsky, The United Front for Defense

Look here for a good collection of RFE/RL reports, and here and here for sympathetic commentary from people with a decidedly different political perspective.

Why do I bring these up, and preface the whole thing with some quotations from Trotsky? Because politics, to actually do any worthwhile amount of work, needs to begin with a visceral (not merely intellectual) conception of the link between self and other. The impulses towards rationalized self-centered behavior are strong, and one needs equally strong, pre-rational affiliations to be able to crowd out those instincts when they're inappropriate. In this sense, to controvert the example from Shoah, you have to believe when someone else pricks their finger, you bleed.

This is beyond human as a task: no one, as Norm Geras points out in The Contract of Mutual Indifference, can actually meet the strict requirement of deontological morality (in this sense), since there is always someone whose finger is getting pricked. Nevertheless, even that feeling of being overwhelmed by one's own pre-rational responses is a sign that everything is functioning as it should: you ought to be horrified at the thought that anyone can look at what happened in Beslan (or Bali, or Madrid, or...) and not be overwhelmed by their feeling of immediate connection to the victims.

There's ample support for this view in any of the major moral philosophies and faith traditions: in Christianity, there's the view expressed by Reinhold Niebuhr's "Why the Christian Church is Not Pacifist," which points out that the fact of sin in the world means that people will perpetually be caught in the midst of evil and violence of many kinds, and that a Christian cannot, in good faith, stand aside and claim those troubles are other than their own. There's the Jewish tradition sometimes embedded in a Haggadah, that "in every single generation it is a man's duty to regard himself as if he went forth from Egypt," that is, not merely look at the Passover as a historical event but ask himself how he would have felt, had he been there; this is perhaps best extended by the commentary (I believe) attributed to Rabbi Hillel on Exodus 2:12--"where there is no man, try to be one."

For a deontologist, you merely have to accept the moral rule that people who do not themselves take part in combat are not acceptable targets for violence; for a utilitarian, you merely have to believe that the world is better, on the whole, when that sort of violence is kept to a minimum.

In other words, there's no basis for failing to feel solidarity for your fellow man.

I'm a bit hesitant to use the "s" word--communist connotations and all--but it does seem to get at a core concept. People are not equal, if for no other reason than a non-uniform distribution of physical gifts (though perhaps for more reasons), but this should not, of itself, be a reason to separate you from others. It's the idea that, as Aaronovitch's column suggests, it could easily be you in that particular situation; moreover, in this particular case, it's the idea that but for your willingness to act now, it will be you one day.