Morals and ethics

[Longinius 1]

Just read a segment on CNN about the executed American journalist, Daniel Pearl.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/26/pearl.videotape/

Now, I think we can all agree that what they did to that man is beyond fucked up. Even if he was a CIA or mossad operative (which I doubt) it would not be justified. To the question...

They snatched him because they wanted their friends released (the people held on Cuba). They didn't get their way and they tortured and killed the journalist. Now, shouldn't America do the same to one of the terrorists?

After all, an eye for an eye. If everyone keeps playing soft with those idiots they will keep on taking and taking and we will keep on yielding and yielding. Simply state that for every westerner or allie to the west they kill, we kill one of theirs in the exact same way.

1. Would that stop future attempts?

2. Would it be right to do this?

3. If not, what should be done instead?

[Oligo 1]

First of all, we cannot be sure whether that tape is just a fabrication of our benevolent governments to incite us to rage. But let's not discuss that. Just pointed out that there is always a possibility of propaganda.

So, assuming that it is true. It is imperative that we understand the reality that being a society of high morals is, before anything else, a huge liability. The price we pay for our freedom is the huge disadvantage we have against people to whom no means are repugnant. Therefore we have two options:

1. We play their game with their rules. We torture and kill people. We would probably win, since we have the means to destroy all opposition if any means are acceptable (including the killing of civilians).

2. We stick to our morals and such. We fight this fight respecting our moral rules, although the enemy is not respecting these rules. In this fight we are handicapped beyond any sense and the fighting may never end.

So which option will we choose? I think we are already slipping towards the first option.

[Longinius 1]

Well, currently we are at option '2'. But I also think there has been tendencies towards option '1'. We will never go quite as far though, not officially any way.

The "advantage" these guys have is the simple fact that they are terrorists. Small cells of operatives that don't have to think a lot about elections, public opinions or morals really.

Another advantage is the fact that they are of a more aggressive nature, they have less to lose and fewer restrictions imposed on them. Its hard to fight people like that, especially when you tie one hand on your back and use the other one to cover your eyes.

[Oligo 1]

"That's why the evil will always triumf, because the good is dumb." Spaceballs the movie

Naah, seriously, I wonder why it is so hard for people to understand that having high morals and sticking to them is actually a handicap in a fight?

"Get me in a fight I like the dirty tricks." Mark Knopfler

[ralphwiggum 6]

someone said, 'You must prepare for war, if you want peace'

I agree with that. In current case(war on al-Qaeda) America needs to keep its feet on moral side, but not always. If there's definitive reason that acting moral will cause certain amount of damage, while acting immoral would cause less, then there no choice. just go immoral.

But it soes not mean we can bypass moral issues. in fact, we should keep it up as much as possible, but if needed, be vigilant.

[Oligo 1]

Unfortunately Ralph, it's not that easy. See, the way the terrorists are fighting is sort of the natural way for humans. The high moral way of the western countries is actually very unnatural for humans and so it takes tremendous effort for us to stay in this state we have achieved with so much effort.

So if you start relaxing the moral standards, like giving them up in certain situations, you take a risk of the corruption spreading from that. See, even western leaders are power hungry, because they are human. If you give them a finger, they'll eat your whole arm and pretty soon we have slid all the way to option 1 (see above).

It's almost impossible to walk a middle line between options 1 and 2. That's the way I see it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

good point, once you cross Rubicon, it's a lot easier to do it again.

However, I think wondering what will happen if you cross and just keep wondering about it is going to be another form of self destruction. If you have to make move, you have to do it. It's unfortunate that once killing is done, then next one is easier. However, if we don't kill another person, he/shw will fight to the point where your life would be compromised. So, here are options.

1.kill your attacker

2.take himdown, and take him to international court

I would prefer second option. However, if situation dictates that option #1 would cause less destruction than #2, I'd unhesitantly choose #1

You have to survive first to be moral.:(

p.s. Nice to see someone like you , Oligo. although we might differ on this topic, I respect your thoughts

[Oligo 1]

Actually this whole issue reminds me of a book by Iain M. Banks called "The use of weapons". Part of that book is about these two men, almost brothers, grew up together in the same family, who end up in a war leading the different sides. One of the brothers is an individual of high morals, so his use of weapons is self-restricted. The other brother is a survivor, however, and for him anything can be a weapon: His use of weapons is unrestricted. Guess which one wins in the end? The moral brother loses the war and is killed, but the immoral brother cannot live with the memories of what he has done (f. ex. killed his sister for strategic advantage) and so the rest of his existence is self-torture.

We can look at Vietnam as an analogy. The U.S. forces ended up using "questionable" methods. The people who had to realize these methods, some of them ended up wrecks, unable to live with what they had done.

The dilemma is simple: If somebody is about kill me, I would absolutely kill him in self defence, without hesitation. But when it gets more complex than that... what then?