Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (58822)	9/19/2002 4:34:38 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That ws a rather chimeric response considering that you were replying to this: "The Nazis committed terrible acts with the fully rationalized belief that they were doing good. However, one does not need to go so far as to believe one is doing good." So you have augmented my point. No harm done. While we are there let us look more closely: Although the speeches and writings of the time indicate that the vast majority had come to believe that the Jews were an evil enemy, you are certainly correct that some would find a great conflict in killing an innocent person. When Neo spoke earlier about moral dilemmas, it was this sort of thing that he had in mind. If you kill an innocent person it is wrong. But YOU are an innocent person; and if you don't obey orders YOU will be killed. What to do? Firstly, self preservation is usualy an overriding ethic where there is conflict. In this case a soldier could rationalize: "We are both innocent; but regardless of what I do, the prisoner will be killed. Therefore it serves no purpose that I should be killed as well." Virtually everything in any society which is judged "wrong" by the society is considered "right" by the same society given the appropriate circumstances. Just as every criminal act known was given moral sanction in the bible, so it is in society. Everything can be rationalized. From their individualized points of view... You are wrong to take drugs; but it is ok for the government to experiment on people for the greater good. You are wrong to break and enter and steal documents; but it is right for the President and henchmen to do it for the greater good. You must not murder or assassinate...unless you have been hired by the Government for God and Country. You must not rape; but if you are a soldier razing a town there is a strong possibility that you will. After all, you are risking your life, and you will risk it again tomorrow. Besides, the enemy is not truly human and they have no rights... Another moral dilemma: two soldiers; different uniforms. They both love their country; and that is "good". They both know to obey their commanding oficer; and that is "good". They have both been ordered to kill the enemy; and that is good. A thoughtful soldier would recognize that it is not good to kill someone who is doing good. But we don't want thoughtful soldiers. We teach them that their buddies are their entire world to whom they owe absolute comittment. We teach them that the enemy is not human but is evil incarnate. We teach them that they are fighting for God and country. God--because countries can be assessed by a soldier who lapses into thinking. But there is no way to assess the supernatural. It is an ideal for which any atrocity can be committed. When people choose to act in a certain manner they are making a value judgement. In every case they are giving more weight to the commission of the act than to an alternate choice. Certainly there may be conflict, but it is resolved sufficient to permit a choice to occur. Generally there is little conflict, overall. People who are habitually outside the law form a distinct subculture of values which are antithetical to the larger society. They are like a rogue nation. It is why I advocate exile. For many of these people the only "wrong" is in getting caught. Many despise and hate those with money and property. And many value only force as a predominant ethic.