When the state is your enemy, moral righteousness overpowers deontological ethics. Owing to this, Isma’s loyalty should have remained with her brother.
Home Fire, set in a contemporary British society encompasses the reality of knowing a religious extremist and the moral dilemma that Isma faces when required to choose between her loyalty to her brother or the state. Isma is the eldest of two siblings, Parvaiz and Aneeka of whom the former is a jihadist. Isma has been portrayed as a mature character who seemed to have filled the boots of her absent father and deceased mother.
Due to the absence of other close family members, Isma felt particularly endearing to her siblings in a motherly manner. We see evidence of this in lines such as “he was raised the way I wish I raised Parvaiz”. Though over time, she had failed to keep in contact with her brother, several things around her reminded her of him, almost making him omnipresent and an inexorable thought. The unconditional love that Isma had for her brother was amplified by her possible guilt of leaving her younger siblings to pursue her degree made her blind-sighted to his wrongdoings and allowed her to empathize deeply with her brother. This allows reflection on an ethical argument of whether circumstances can be used to justify the actions taken by Parvaiz and subsequently create empathy for him by Isma.
The role of the bureaucracy against the moral righteousness allows us to explore deontological ethics, characterized by the morality of an action being based on a series of rules oftentimes founded on some sort of authority. In this situation, deontological ethics would refer to Isma’s duty towards her country and acceptance of her brother’s legal wrongdoing. Moral righteousness would contrast greatly against those assertions as it suggests that her duty towards her brother fuelled by their unmatchable relationship of years is far greater than any set of rules imposed by the state. Moreover, having faced the brunt of being a Muslim first hand, Isma was aware of how one could feel easily disconnected to the state. She may have with resonated her brother in this sense, hence making her reservations about informing the police justified. She may have with resonated her brother in this sense, hence making her reservations about informing the police justified.
Home Fire can be seen as a modern recreation of Antigone, the ancient Greek play which portrays a similar moral dilemma. In Antigone, Creon is the name of the king in reign at the time and he has chosen to forbid the burial rituals of Polynices – an enemy of the state and also imprisons his sister cruelly for tampering to go against his orders. Creon serves the roles of both the bureaucracy as well as kin as he is related to Polynices and Antigone. In such a situation, Creon’s balance of duties come into consideration when he must decide between being humane to a criminal who ultimately remains his nephew and a morally acting woman who has gone against the state. Creon is headstrong in his thinking that all must be equal in front of the law and a line that is drawn back for one can never be put forward again for the rest of his subjects.
Both texts can be compared in regards to obstacles that they face in making their decisions. In both cases, the state, be it the British parliament or the court of King Creon, are in opposition to their will to show their respect to their loved ones by performing last rites. In Antigone, the initial enemy of the state is made clear to be Polynices, due to his actions of betrayal. Whereas in Home Fire, the perceived enemy of the state was the Muslim Community as a whole and not just Parvaiz as instances of discrimination and profiling were seen even before his actions. However, the true enemy of the state, as well as the Muslim community in Home Fire, was only religious extremists.
An argument that the generalization of the community as religious extremists overtime accumulate many societal impacts on the life of a young man. But being the minority in such a community, very few people can resonate with the circumstances faced, leading to strong anti-immigrant sentiments following the events. Moreover, the role of politicians such as Karamat in throwing a community under the bus only magnifies such scenarios of xenophobia. When society has failed an individual, the question must be asked whether their obligations to society are still valid. This is another reason as to why Isma should have valued family loyalty more than state loyalty.
Parvaiz’s actions were questionable and came from a place of disconnectedness from a society that had stopped working for him. To be inhumane to one who society has already failed is failing them again. For this reason, Isma should have abided by consequentialist theories and allowed for the truth to reveal itself as opposed to surrendering her familial loyalties.