My view of the "Saving Lives" argument is that it is too general. It can be applied in too many ways and perspectives. You can also apply it in a very restrictive manner, meaning that to keep someone, anyone, alive is a good thing. I don't view death as a bad thing. It is inevitable and in that respect no more of a good or bad thing that being born. What is done in life may be viewed as either good or bad.
The argument of saving lives or saving a life in and of itself is good falls short. Is keeping Saddam, Hitler, whoever, alive good? Intentionally killing anyone under this presumption is bad.
Or you can argue that the less people who die today the better. If one hundred people are going to die when we bomb country X but only 99 would die today if we refrain from bombing country X, then bombing country X is bad. But, if the 100 people who die in the bombing were heinously evil and would have tortured the 99 innocent people to death without the bombing, isn't that more important than simply how many lives are saved or lost?
"However, it is incumbent on all decent people to take a stand for justice and against injustice, regardless of the risks to their own livelihood. Under this umbrella you can make the argument for "saving" innocent victims from the tyranny of their torturous and murderous oppressors (i.e. Saddams)."
Everyone of us is going to die. The notion that you or anyone can stop death is false. What we can do is take a stand against the unjust perpetration of suffering onto one person by another. This may or may not involve the death of the perpetrator(s), and it may or may not keep the innocent victims alive. How many persons remain alive at the end of such a confrontation is not important. How many innocents suffer or die in the process, does matter. How many innocents are able to remain alive having been rescued from the hands of their oppressors is important. How many innocents who will never become victims of oppression as a result is important.
Question: If there are 5 million heignous criminals torturing 10, or 100, 1000, 10,000, or 10 million innocent victims, is it ok to take a stand against the 5 million, even if it means killing them to rescue the 10 or whatever number (economics aside)? Five million lives destroyed... Does the number have to be greater (5 mil criminals vs 10 million victims)?
If you reduce the argument to one of taking a stand against unjust perpetration of suffering on one (or a group) by another; you have a very clean argument. When you start trying to balance the number dieing with the number living, you get lost in the mire of numbers and everyone on all sides has a field day in that mire. |
