The Six Weeks That Transformed Jonathan

There is no limit to the human capacity for learning and improvement. I am amazed at the transformation of out-going President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan. The man had six weeks to reform and sell himself to Nigerian voters. Many of us doubted if the six week postponement of the 2015 General Elections in Nigeria would be enough for him to re-brand himself. Amazingly, the man succeeded beyond my wildest imagination.

1. GEJ put on his uniform as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of Nigeria and visited the war front. He looked Presidential, was confident and exuded charm and conviviality among his troops. This is what he would have done immediately the Chibok girls were abducted, if his advisers had allowed him.

2. Our soldiers routed and defeated the terrorists within six weeks, liberating many of our towns and LGAs that were under their occupation.

3. GEJ campaigned tirelessly and relentlessly in every nook and corner of the country, including Maiduguri which his mindless advisors never allowed him to visit in the past.

The fact is that if President Jonathan had done the things he did in six weeks during the entire period of six years when he occupied Aso Rock, Nigerian voters would have given him the mandate to continue for another four years in office.

But his greatest achievement, to my mind, is the statesmanship President Jonathan has displayed even in defeat at the polls. For the first time in Nigeria's history, an incumbent elected leader is conceding victory at the polls without recourse to courts and tribunals. He has saved the lives of many Nigerians, and history will certainly treat him with great respect as one of the founders of true democracy in this country.

Can stealing and corruption be morally right?

When I was in elementary school, a teacher gave my class this ethical dilemma to solve.

A young man is driving a bus filled with several young persons. While speeding across a bridge, he suddenly sees his mother standing in the middle of the bridge. The only way to avoid hitting and killing her instantly is to swerve and crash into the river below, in the process killing many of his passengers and probably himself too. What would you do if you were that young driver?

Needless to say, this ethical poser generated heated and endless debate among us. Up till date, several decades afterwards, there appears to be no consensus as to the right moral choice to make in such a situation. What we did not know then was that the ethical dilemma we were confronted with as young pupils was the biggest question debated by the two main contrasting theories in ethical philosophy – John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism as opposed to the Categorical Imperatives which form the central thesis in Immanuel Kant’s deontological moral philosophy.

Philosophers who support utilitarianism argue that for any action to be moral and right, it must maximize utility. Utility may be defined to include pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of pain or suffering. Thus, the consequences of your action determine whether it is right or good or moral. If we agree that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong, then the correct thing for out hypothetical driver to do in the moral dilemma posed above is to drive right ahead and crush his mother to death, saving the life of the several passengers in his bus. Of course, he can mourn and give her a befitting burial later, but he would be satisfied that his action saved the lives of several people and spared many other families the pain and agony of burying their dead had he swerved and crashed into the river.

Not so, argues Immanuel Kant who states in his deontological ethics or deontology that the morality of an action is based on the action's adherence to a universal rule or law, not on its consequences. For example, it is a universal law that one must not lie. As far as this philosopher is concerned, therefore, there can never be a ‘good’ lie. If a person who has the intention of murdering someone asks you of his intended victim’s whereabouts, it is not morally right for you to lie, you must tell the truth, no matter the consequences for the victim. For our hapless speeding driver on the bridge with his mother standing in his way, therefore, the categorical imperative would be for him to obey the universal laws which state that you should honour your mother and father, and ‘thou shall not kill.’ He should swerve his bus in order to avoid killing his mother, whatever the consequences for his hapless passengers.

I am a utilitarian moralist, a consequentialist to the core. Much as I admire Kant’s work and am mystified by his complicated arguments and controversial conclusions on this issue of morality, I believe that many evil doers can hide behind his so-called duty ethics to perpetrate a lot of evil in society. For example, just because it is universally accepted that a man must cater for his family, does it justify Nigerian politicians diverting and  stealing public funds, bringing misery and suffering to millions of other Nigerians? This question is a valid philosophical poser considering that at the trial of Nazi war criminal Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, he was said to have declared "with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life ... according to a Kantian definition of duty!"

Back to my elementary school ethical dilemma, will I really be able to crush my own mother to death on the bridge, saving the lives of my several passengers? I doubt it very much. Even as a utilitarian, my basic instinct would be to brake and swerve, damning the consequences. Maybe Kant added some value to our moral philosophy after all. If only the man were not so long-winded and obscure in his writings. Clarity prevents misinterpretation and misapplication of concepts.

Kudos for reading this long blog post to the very end! Can anyone respond to my ethical poser on thieving and corrupt Nigerian politicians?

Ahmed Mu'azu on the run?

I do not think Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chairman, Ahmed Adamu Mu’azu has fled the country - the man is not a coward!

Politics of insults and calumny cannot move the country forward - I respect Mu'azu's decision not to participate in hurling insults at Buhari like other campaign coordinators of incumbent President Jonathan. If he stays away in Dubai indefinitely (until Saturday's election), he may be responding to pressures from the war hawks currently holding the Aso Rock incumbent to ransom.

On the other hand, if the man does come back as his party says, then I am right - Mu'azu is certainly not a coward.

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog.

I have an indigo perspective on people, ideas and things. I am often shocked when people I respect intellectually express ideas or do certain things which reveal extremely poor insight and foresight. Is it possible that things which are pretty obvious to some of us with the ability to see things from a higher plane are so hidden to other humans? Or, maybe, much of humanity is just being sinister, knowing the truth but saying and doing the opposite most of the time. I suspect the latter to be true.

Just a quick example. Watching the USA and NATO engineered collapse of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, it was obvious that the chaotic dispersal of his vast armoury of machine guns and missiles would lead to civil strife and more terrorism across Africa and beyond. What the hell were President Obama and his western allies thinking? The blood of literally hundreds of thousands of innocents slaughtered in Africa and the Middle East since then must be placed at their doorsteps. Thoughtless actions lead to thoughtless events, with grave consequences.

It is time for those with insight and foresight to speak up. Remaining silent is no longer an option.

I invite you to share your thoughts on people, ideas, events and things with me on this forum. People must be made to see the other side of the coin. On my part, I promise to post my frank views and comments in this blog, no matter whose ox is being gored.

Cheers!