Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
960 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > How do you know that? Which people have done what to you? How can you say
> > that killing them is worse than what they did or would do? Who is innocent?
>
> Who is innocent of butchery, rape, and terrorism? Why, those who have not in
> fact buthered, raped, and terrorized.
The fact that someone is innocent of those three acts doesn't make them
guiltless for any number of others. Is this "butchery" that we're talking
about the worst thing that you can imagine? Is it inherently worse than
enslaving thousands?
> I assert that the higher ground of human
> character is achieved not by practicing a vindictive tit-for-tat system of
> revenge and vigilantism, but rather, by instead standing upon the moral high
> ground of restraint and justice that does not pay an eye for an eye.
You said before that there are things worth fighting for. Things worth killing
enemy soldiers over. Isn't that the tit for tat that you now claim to be
against? I am opposed to revenge-based "justice," but it seems that most
people are not. I think we should look at why bad things are done, and make it
(when possible) so that those people don't feel the need to do bad things.
Most people just want to hurt them. That's childish. But when I see someone
denying me of the rights that I consider sacred, if violence is the only way to
respond, then to do so is just. If there are other plausible responses, then
they are probably the best choice.
> I'll take slavery if the alternative is to become a devil - a monster of a
> person.
Out of genuine curiosity, why? How do you stand to gain by allowing yourself
to be subjugated to another? Is it in your mind impossible to come back from
being a devil?
> > What makes someone a non-combatant? If you're a black share-cropper in • 1920's
> > Alabama and the local stores charge you and extra 50% "black tax" then are
> > those people combatants? Are they to be spared merely because they haven't • (at
> > least right at this moment) taken up arms in order to murder you?
>
> Bear arms against those to whom resistance is required. But let there be a • just
> limit to your aggression. There was no doubt a proper and reasonable level of
> resistance due the local merchants - the moral calculus is in finding that • level
> without overstepping the bounds of justice or human decency.
It seems that you aren't willing to take a hard stand on this. How much
aggression is fitting? I don't see anything morally amiss when this
hypothetical black share-cropper caves the back of the merchant's head in with
a hatchet and takes all his stuff. Though, I'm dubious that in this scenario,
it would be terribly productive...it's just not something that I'd condem.
> > Must be for what? I agree that that would be nice, and is even worth • striving
> > for, but not at the cost of subjugation.
>
> Whatever moral, ethical, and social progress that humanity has made is owed to
> the morally corageous among us who have refused to live by kill-or-be-killed.
I think it's more complicated than that. I think that we (I mean the US, or
The West, or probably most successful groups) sometimes to "bad" things in
order to allow our way of life to continue. And it is our way of life that
lets us have the free time to develop morality, ethics, and social progress.
At some times, as a group, we had to live by those kill-or-be-killed rules so
that at a later time we could continue to do "good." So I'd say we owe those
progresses both to the enlightened and to the barbarians among us.
> > > I hope to become a slave myself before I stoop so low as
> > > to murder the innocent for the sake of my own personal liberties.
> >
> > Ah, but in your current relative comfort, you may define "the innocent"
> > differently than you would as a slave.
>
> The innocent and guilty define themselves by their actions.
We define them by our perceptions of their actions.
> > > This does not mean that I am a pacifist; on the contrary,
> > > some things are worth fighting for, and fighting for very hard.
> >
> > But only you can decide what those are.
>
> Indeed. But do you imagine that there are so many fundamentally different • views
> of right and wrong?
I think that my views of right and wrong are substantially different than many
others (though there certainly is common ground). Maybe I'm an annomoly, but
how many others are?
> Show me a nation or culture that esteems cowardice or treachery.
> Show me a culture that values not its kindred. Will you point to
> differences in sexual practices? Some cultures believe that a man
> may have many wives; some that a man may only have one. Yet, no
> people on earth have believed that a man may have *any* women that
> he chooses. Different measures, same ingredients.
Some cultures believe that it is acceptable to enslave. Some cultures believe
that it is good to hurt certain people. Others disagree. You cite the
attributes that are needed for a culture to even exist. But those aren't the
basis of morality. There is broad variance in what different groups of people
think is OK.
> I doubt that you
> will consider something truly evil unless by its
> actions it has proven that title.
Certainly. But what I think is evil and what you think is evil are not that
same. What accounts for that discreppancy? Why does one thing "prove" evil to
me and not to you?
> Perhaps not equal. But armed and ready for the task. I'll not thrust • bayonets
> through the bellies of those who wield no defense.
Even if they're likely to take up arms once you have passed?
I think war is ugly. And if we can't stomach it, then we shouldn't be doing
it. But if I had to kill the unarmed because there was a good chance they
would become armed, then that would just be one of the ugly aspects of war.
> > > and allow him his life if he throws down his arms and begs you
> > > for it.
> >
> > If it is a nicety that you can afford, then it is the right thing to do.
>
> A *nicety*? Under what circumstance might it be appropriate to run him
> through when he is at your mercy?
When you can't imprison him and he presents a clear or substantial future
threat. Perhaps it would be adequate to severe his Achilies tendons or his
spine and letting him go, depending on the circumstances, but that just seems
sick.
> > > Chris, God help us all if your just measure of life is threatened.
> >
> > A) I'm not the only one. B) None of us have real justice. But it takes
> > serious injustice to get the hackles raise to the point of violence.
>
> Yes. But violence with restraint, and violence with mercy.
I just can't agree. As a personal philosophy, I will not engage in violence
until I believe it is appropriate to end a life. When it gets to that stage,
there are no actions that are inappropriate, because someone's life is forfeit.
I have been in situations in which I allowed a person to assault me
unprotested because I didn't want to fight back and knew that I was in no real
danger. I just extend this personal philosophy to the aggressions of nations,
and I find that violence should either not be engaged in at all, or engaged in
with no limits until it is no longer needed.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) My response to a wrong committed against me can only be in measured proportion to the wrong in question done to me. What I'm getting at, is that I can't morally punish a man for everything he's ever done - only the crime for which evidence has (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) The presence of gray areas in any moral calculus, i.e., moral conundrums, does not negate moral principles. In some circumstances we do not know what the right thing to do is, but in all circumstances we can determine what is definitely not (...) (23 years ago, 5-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
