I have been discussing with several different people today the question:
"Is there such a thing as a just war?"
WWII and Iraq II both were in the end means of removing a dictator.
There are those who would argue that both are just or unjust. It is curious how this divide forms. It would seem to me that to believe in a just war you must believe in punishment because a just war is ultimately a punishment of the wicked. To believe in punishment, particularlly corporal punishment one must believe in the relative value of lives and actions. That is to say, that taking a life now will somehow create a better future. I then have a few questions that struck me as would show whether someone can beleive in a just war.
would you kill one to save another, ten, a thousand, a million?
would you kill a friend to save ten stranger?
would you kill ten strangers to save a friend?
would you let one die to save your life?
would you let a thousand die to save your life?
Now of course this all lends to a larger question of where does the value of life stand on the hierarchy of values but it occurred to me interesting that the famous quote by Spock could somehow tie into Saddam Husein.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm not sure how punishment plays into the classic hypotheticals you mentioned. I don't believe in punishment. I am not punishing someone if I'm defending myself or someone else. I'm punishing them if I kick them when they are already down. War isn't about punishing the wicked. I suppose it's about power.
War is generally about creating some sort of desired effect through use of force. I'm pretty sure at some point in the past, it used to mean a purely territorial dispute. I don't know what modern warfare means. It's certainly different than huge armies clashing on battlefields out in the open, wearing uniforms.
There is no such thing as a "just war" in the sense that there is no true justification for instigating a war besides self interest. However, once a war is instigated, to respond becomes noble. A war is not just or unjust: how a person or group responds to war is either just or unjust. To instigate a war is simple desperation, greed or madness. To respond to a war - that's not so cut and dry.
Would I kill 1,000 people to save a friend? Of course, if they were stupid enough to keep coming and killing them was the only way they could be stopped.
If some strange god-like creature told me that either my son dies or 1,000 strangers die and it was my choice. I would tell the god-like creature to fuck itself.
Some hypothetical questions lose their meaning out of context and some just aren't relevant.
This morning, a professional interrogator was discussing the ridiculousness of the "doomsday clock" scenario where you absolutely needed to get information from someone in order to save thousands of lives. The question is always: would you torture? The answer to that question is: that never happens. The follow up discussion involved how various brutal interrogation techniques were crass, stupid, and ineffectual; and how inexperienced, unprofessional, incompetent interrogators don't get results. (It was actually quite interesting, because by the tone of his voice, you could tell that he felt his profession was being sullied by people who didn't know what the fuck they were doing.)
The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes real life gives you an option C.
Nicely said, Marian.
I will note the last time I and Marian talked about punishment she got so angry that she hit me.
It wasn't effective was it?
-Exactly my point.
wow, way to be hostile out of nowhere.
Post a Comment