Relationships: Cat Skins

It was just an "error in judgment".

Well, yes. That's an aspect of being dysfunctional. We all make errors in judgment. The problem begins when those "errors" represent the norm.

Now remember, we are not talking about "truth" or "right" anymore. We are talking about being functional based on the world around us. Do we make choices that make sense based on seeking an intended, positive outcome without producing negative, unintended outcomes?

Wait a minute!!!! The world isn't that simple. Okay, nothing ever is. We are, indeed, generalizing. But there is room for disagreement about outcomes here. The room is based on the timeframe one uses in examining choices. For example, the choice to defeat a tyranny through the use of force may be functional. Nevertheless, one could look at outcomes over a short timeframe and conclude that the effort was dysfunctional because it cost large amounts of money and lives of our citizens. The American War of Independence or the British fight against the Nazis might well have seemed dysfunctional because of the initial losses. But the outcomes took years to solidify... and after some serious setbacks.

On that basis, it is quite early to determine if Iraq was the "wrong" or "right" war right now. Have we "won the battle and lost the war" or "lost the battle and won the war"? How can you tell? If the goal was to stop an organized, extremist, Islamic group from perpetrating acts of violence against the U.S. (and other countries), the actions in Iraq may or may not be dysfunctional. I wrote the following to a well-known columnist who was already drawing conclusions about the U.S. involvement in Iraq:

What is or should be apparent to all is that Iraq is only one point of contention in a protracted conflict between Islamic radicals and whatever is not Islamic. It will be protracted for as long as people try to reason or negotiate with those who accept the radical agenda. Those who believe that homicide by suicide of innocent people is the "Will of Allah" will cause the world great grief in this century. I am under the strong impression that the world cannot rely on the French or Germans to take a strong stand against such radicalism and that the so-called intellectuals in the U.S. who preach that all cultures are morally-equivalent will excuse the fanatic Islamists as being "depraved because they were deprived" (I know that dates me)... in other words "they are following their faith." Iraq is only a chapter in the story and, perhaps, far less important than those ahead.

Now, this is a bit of a digression. The original point was that complexity must be factored into evaluating whether a choice or action was dysfunctional or not. This is not necessarily a matter of scale. There may be little complexity in a decision to fight a war. If we are attacked by a nation or force intent on destroying our social structure and having territorial dominion over us, we can make a functional decision to fight back based on:

• our ability to fight
• our willingness to face the risk of death
• our unwillingness to succumb to a cruel and tyrannical force

However, if our concern is not with who has power, but only with survival, we may make a functional decision to not fight, but to capitulate. India and China capitulated to the British and survived not only intact, but with knowledge of business and organization learned from the British. They traded freedom and power, temporarily, for the preservation of their lives and cultures. It worked out over a couple of centuries. So what may have been a seemingly dysfunctional choice to quit fighting may have been a functional one on an albeit greatly delayed timeframe.

The point of this is that we can err when we are quick to judge. And furthermore, there may be more than one approach to a problem that is functional... leading to intended, positive results. There is more than one way to skin a cat... an old, somewhat disgusting thought... but applicable.

As with "truth" and "right", we need to discuss "dysfunctional" within the context of the situation. You shall not kill is a functional statement within the context of living with your neighbors, your town, your country... your groups. It sustains an environment of peaceful cooperation. What about killing killers... killing those who willingly, actively seek to kill others? That's a little stickier, isn't it. Some might argue that it is morally reprehensible to kill anyone... including a killer. Others might argue that it is morally reprehensible to pay huge sums of money to keep such persons living for the rest of their lives.

Ah, we see how mixing "right" and "wrong" with "functional" and "dysfunctional" complicates matters.

So then how do we decide?