If we suspect the judgment of people who have experienced trauma, shouldn’t we also question those who have led a sheltered life?
Those who advocate for the use of force, who believe in the value of the death penalty, who believe that “sparing the rod spoils the child,” who having been victims of child abuse become child abusers themselves as adults, etc. — isn’t their judgment suspect by those of us who benefitted from a sheltered childhood and adulthood?
And likewise, those who advocate for non-violence, who oppose the death penalty, who believe in “time out” instead of spanking, who have never suffered abuse or witnessed it and whose relationships with other human beings are always peaceful and wholesome, etc. — isn’t their judgment suspect by the rest of society?
The point is, what is the ideal background and experience that confers wisdom and sound judgment on a person? We think we know what first-hand experiences we should avoid — child abuse, incest, kidnapping, rape, warfare, torture, auto accidents, plane crashes, fire, hurricanes, floods, earth quakes, etc. People that survive these traumas may be “damaged” and have impaired judgment the rest of their lives.
But doesn’t having been sheltered from everything make for naivete´? Can’t one be accused of “ivory tower” idealism and easily be dismissed from serious discussions about crime and punishment, ware and peace, deterrence and disarmament, negotiation and preconditions, regulations and privatization. Can a pacifist be taken seriously who objects to a particular weapon system? Can a recovering alcoholic have a legitimate opinion about prohibitionism? Can a gay person’s opinion about gay marriage carry weight with straight people?
I’m really interested in the impulse toward pacifism, and wonder if there is a peculiar environment which produces pacifists (like there may be which produces alcoholics or gays) which makes us discount their opinions. Do we say to ourselves, they can believe that way because they have the luxury of never having to defend themselves from a bully when they were growing up, or their fathers and uncles were never in the military, or their own experience in the military gave them post-traumatic stress, etc. We can always explain away why their opinion differs from ours, but can we say that we are right and they are wrong?
Trying to psychoanalyze those with whom we disagree can be an endless exercise of self-assurance, but what if we slip into analyzing ourselves? Don’t we see the same gaps or traumas in our own lives? Don’t we see why it looks suspicious to outsiders that we advocate something because it fits our experience and our desire for self-validation?
If we come from a background of pacifism and we oppose the use of depleted uranium in weapons, aren’t we immediately suspect as pacifists that, of course, we oppose all weapons anyway? Why would any “neutral” person take us seriously? But wouldn’t a neutral person admit that there may be “good” weapons and “bad” weapons, that even in warfare, there could be such things as “war crimes”? I think this neutral person would listen to the arguments, consider the facts, hear “both” sides, and make a neutral judgment.
It may be that advocates for a particular policy may be partisan and committed to their conclusions and shaped by their backgrounds and experiences (or from being sheltered from some experiences). And advocates for a different policy may be driven by selfish reasons, business or career reasons, desire for revenge, hatred for the “enemy,” etc. Still a neutral observer could sort this all out, and make a judgment on sheerly pragmatic grounds.
