The university that doesn’t want conservative Ben Shapiro giving speeches at their school because it might upset their violent students, employs a philosophy professor named Mohammed Abed who thinks some genocide is morally required at times.
He wants to broaden the definition of “genocide”. That, of course, would water down and change its meaning, we’d have to go on to Merriam Webster for alternatives.
His ideas were the subject of a 2015 paper he wrote and which was reprinted by Taki Mag earlier this month.
The California State University, Los Angeles (CSULA) professor argued in his 2015 paper, “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered,” that genocide — defined as “a violent process that aims at the liquidation of protected groups” — doesn’t need to involve mass murder, and the perpetrators of genocide can have a wide variety of motivations, not all of which are evil. “The characteristic harm of genocide, I will argue, consists in the fact that victims are stripped — either permanently or temporarily — of a social identity that gives meaning to their lives,” he wrote in his analysis.
He thinks “genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”
The breaking of social bonds is what makes genocide a problem for him. Colonization he says is genocide as is slavery.
Slavery in the American South, he said, was a “comprehensive way of life and worldview” to many whites, and that the North had a moral imperative to wage a genocide against them to annihilate this morally repugnant feature of the South.
He’s wrong about that. The North had a right to try and win the war, not annihilate white southerners.
What about the slavery today? Much of it takes place in the Middle East and Africa. Does that bother him? Women are treated like slaves in much of the world. Shall we call for a “moral genocide”?
From Cal State’s directory: Mohammed Abed (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, ethics, social & political philosophy, classical Islamic philosophy