Deep moral question

[cazort]

I have a question. Why is it that in our society, we believe that it is VERY VERY BAD to pre-meditate and specifically kill one person for a specific reason, and yet we believe that it's NOT NEARLY AS BAD to indirectly kill one, tens, hundreds, or thousands of people in an impersonal manner. (I.e. through war, or through neglect, or through some other impersonal means.)

I have always believed the opposite. I believe all killing is wrong...but I think that the most evil crime is to kill someone that you do not know, or to kill someone in a manner which detaches yourself from the killing (the whole remote pushing of a button to blow something up).

Here is my reasoning:

If you kill someone that you know very well, and you planned it ahead of time, it may still be wrong, but at least you know them, and have decided that you want to kill them. You have a reason for it. You may respect human life in general, but they did something to make you stop respecting their life.

If you kill someone that you do not know at all--it is a very different crime--it shows a total disregard for human life. The fact that you would set yourself on the moral level to let another person die, a person who you know nothing about--is arrogant and disgusting.

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Why does our society seem to think that personal killing is worse? I can't seem to understand where this idea comes from, and I can't understand why people don't object more strongly to impersonal killing (again, examples, through war, or negligence).

[jku]

This is an interesting discussion. For example, Henry Kissinger is still well respected in America, often appears on TV, and was even named to the 9/11 commission - but if he set foot in France he would be on arrested an put on trial for War Crimes.

What he did wasn't a big deal, you know how those French are, he's only guilty of killing MILLIONS Cambodians for no other reason than to prove that he could do it.

How is this fair?

[jku]

This is interesting, but to say that the sole reason most men didn't fire was due to their Christian faith is far-fetched.

For example Bush claims to be a Christian, yet he sees nothing wrong with bombing Iraq for political gain.

The guilt of killing a man is something that bears on the concious for a lifetime, and goes well beyond the superficiality of religious doctrine. To override the instinct to maintain survival of the species and not kill a fellow man that has done nothing personal against you, is akin to a mother overriding (because of drug addiction or something else) her instinct to take care of her child.

I think the 1993 movie UNFORGIVEN with Clint Eastwood covers the quote cited by EPHANTA well. Anyone else here seen it?

[cheetah]

Originally posted by ephphatha
I think Marshall was just speculating when he attributed their unwillingness to shoot to their Christian morals. On the other hand, the vast majority of conscientious objectors objected on the grounds that it was against their Christian morals. I don't see what George Bush has to do with it. Apparently, Christians differ on the morality of war.


What do you mean by the vast majority? If you mean purely numbers, that's probably because the vast majority of people in our country are Christian or identify with Judeo-Christian beliefs. What if you took the number of conscientious objectors as a percentage of the total number of people of their faith? Or, even better, as a percentage of the total number of people of their faith who were drafted? That would be a lot more accurate to draw conclusions like above.

[kitalyn414]

back to the original topic:

i think this stems from the fact that we, as a society, are shielded from the horrors occuring outside of our country. let us take a look at the nightly news:

we may hear a report of a terrorist bombing in the middle east. the reporter sums it up with something to the effect of "a roadside bomb exploded today in Basra, killing the bomber and wounding at least five others."

then we get, "in other news, an 18 year old clerk was gunned down during the robbery of a [insert city here] taco bell. 2 unidentified men alledgedly entered the restaurant with concealed weapons and demanded the cash from the registers. when the clerk hesistated, she was reportedly shot 3 times in the head and chest. let's go live to the scene with joe shmoe... joe?" then we see joe standing outside of the taco bell, talking with some hysterical witnesses. the scene is really moving.

on a daily basis, the local news is dramatized and personalized while world news is most often portrayed as something that is not happening to "US." the media philosophy is "well, i guess they should know about it... but let's make sure they don't care." can you imagine if we had the same coverage in bagdhad? let's send our reporters over there to talk to the innocent bystander/witness and see how things are different. we are sheltered from the terrible things that our country is doing around the world in order to prevent another vietnam-type domestic resistance.

bush's justification of the murder of hundreds holds no more water than that of a homicidal maniac. imagine if a muderer used this defense in court, "well, judge, it's like this. someone told me that bob down the street had lots of guns. now i know that bob doesn't have as nice or as big of a house as i do, and i think that ticks him off. i mean, he is always giving me dirty looks when i am out watering my lawn with his hose and one time he egged my house... well i am pretty sure it was him. anyway, this one day we got in a real big fight, lots of yelling and some shoving. bob ran back over to his house, i assumed to get one of his many guns. i ran back home, got my gun, and came back and shot him and his family. it was self defense. i was just protecting my family. bob is clearly a dangerous man, your honor."

ok ok i really got carried away with that one. i had a lot of coffee this morning and am not even sure that it makes sense. sorry if i offend.

[jku]

NO - you didn't get carried away. Actually you are right on target...
The time to stop Hussein's horror was in the mid to late 1980s, when the killings occured - but what did Reagan and Bush do until 1989 knowing full well mass graves were being dug?
$200 Million in American Taxpayer money to Hussein.

One question I have for the President is simple: How can he, on the same day that he signed a ban against "partial birth abortion," allow living, sentient American Soldiers and Iraqi citizens to be slaughtered in a fate far worse?

If this War was REALLY about what the stated reasons - democracy, protecting America from a serious threat, etc - then we could conclude that the war is somehow justifiable if some are unwittingly killed so that many may live.

But to see a war done so middle class bald guys feel "good" enough to vote for your re-election, and oligarchical super-rich bald guys feel better because they can buy a yacht and pay off alimony on their third wife. Well, that's no reason at all....

[Benwa]

Its difficult to say why people who think murder in america is wrong feel murder abroad is OK. IMO if you wouldn't do it in your personal life then it isn't ok for your gov't to do it. Lets say some guy kills your son. You would most likely seek police action. You might kill that man. But you would never find out where the man lives, kill his family, bomb his town, destroy the livilihood of his neighbors, force them to live under your rule. It just isn't a natural response. People have an inate compassion for one another. And they may seek a vengence, they don't want to see others suffer miserably. this is good, it means we are inherently good hearted.

Our public isn't stupid, they know whats going on over there. Of course theres covert things we only hear about 20 years later and are revolted by. But this is leaders suppressing info. your average joe knows deep in his heart that the rulers behaviour isn't right. Theres only one way to get the public behind something like this. Fear. You have to scare the living hell out of them. they have to be convinced they are in mortal danger. This is why a self defense murder is viewed as OK. "It was either him or me." fear clouds the mind. this is also why we generally don't blame the soldiers, they were fighting for their life.

It has nothing to do with religion or ethics. We live in a time of fear, we are scared of everything. but fear is a choice and if you refuse to be afraid then the boneheads you elect can't manipulate you. They themselves are fearful people, I doubt W would ever consider murdering someone. But he does what he does out of fear. fear of losing control, fear of letting people down, fear of being a failure, whatever. he's a very fearful man. Thats why all the presidents seem to age about 50 years while in office. I don't dislike W personally, I just think he's an awful awful president. Being afraid leads to bad things, you hurt people. I don't know the solution. Except choose to not be afraid. Don't let the leaders fear rub off on you. Leaders should behave as a mitigator not an instigator. If anything they should calm your fear.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by ephphatha



So if you had to guess, why would you say that so few people were willing to shoot?

ephphatha

I'm just saying that if you are attributing it to Christian morals, you should have some evidence that shows that Christians actually do conscientiously object more often than adherents to other religions. Just because the vast majority say that it is because of Christian morals (if indeed they do), that doesn't mean the vast majority of CO's are Christian, but might simply be reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people are christian (in the US). So, even if only 2 out of the 100 CO's in a sample were Buddhist, it could still be a much higher rate for them, simply because there may have been only 3 Buddhists to begin with. Then, you would say that 2/3 of Buddhists are CO's. Which is a much more precise comparison than saying most (absolute numbers) CO's are Christian.

I don't know why so few people were willing to shoot, but it's interesting to speculate on. It's just that when I see vague statements or methodological flaws in conclusions, I like to dig deeper.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by ephphatha
cheetah,

It doesn't sound like we disagree. All I said is that the vast majority of conscientious objectors in WWII were objecting because it was against their Christian morals. I didn't say that the vast majority of Christians are conscientious objectors. If you had 100 people, 90 of which are Christian and 10 of which are Buddhist, and you had 10 Christian CO's and 5 Buddhist CO's, although it's true that Buddhists are more likely to be CO's than Christians, it would still be true that there were more Christian CO's than Buddhist. And let's face it, during WWII, Christians far outnumbered Buddhists. They STILL do, at least in America.

ephphatha

Sure, fine, but the conclusion you drew:Apparently, Christians differ on the morality of war.
is not necessarily true. You have a larger sampling of Christians, so you don't know that Christians differ, you only know you have a lot of Christians. In your example above, your conclusion would actually be wrong, or at least the opposite of what you think it is; in your numbers example, Christians differ on the morality of war in that they are less likely to object to it. So, once again, my point is, you cannot draw conclusions on whether or not Christians think differently about the morality of war when you have such a disproportionate sample of Christians and have no idea how many of other faiths (or no faith) you have.

[Maraschinored]

I think "personal" killing is looked down upon in our society as opposed to "impersonal" ie. war, killing because its selfish. You don't like so-and-so for whatever reason so you kill them, and that benefits no one except for you. So it is frowned upon. But when our country goes to war and kills thousands of people from some other country, its seen as benefiting all of us. Ever notice how when a soldier goes to war, people talk about the "sacrifice" he or she is making for "their country"? So in other words, our government, (and others), endorses the mass killing of those who are seen as a threat to our society, but does not endorse the individual killing of one person who we might see as a threat to our own person. Messed up huh?

[cheetah]

ephphatha,
You are right. Thanks for clearing it up.

I think people don't shoot for reasons related to what maraschinored said. To extend on it, when you are there, about to shoot a person, it BECOMES personal to you.

[manicmonkie]

Originally posted by cazort
I have a question. Why is it that in our society, we believe that it is VERY VERY BAD to pre-meditate and specifically kill one person for a specific reason, and yet we believe that it's NOT NEARLY AS BAD to indirectly kill one, tens, hundreds, or thousands of people in an impersonal manner. (I.e. through war, or through neglect, or through some other impersonal means.)

I have always believed the opposite. I believe all killing is wrong...but I think that the most evil crime is to kill someone that you do not know, or to kill someone in a manner which detaches yourself from the killing (the whole remote pushing of a button to blow something up).

Here is my reasoning:

If you kill someone that you know very well, and you planned it ahead of time, it may still be wrong, but at least you know them, and have decided that you want to kill them. You have a reason for it. You may respect human life in general, but they did something to make you stop respecting their life.

If you kill someone that you do not know at all--it is a very different crime--it shows a total disregard for human life. The fact that you would set yourself on the moral level to let another person die, a person who you know nothing about--is arrogant and disgusting.

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Why does our society seem to think that personal killing is worse? I can't seem to understand where this idea comes from, and I can't understand why people don't object more strongly to impersonal killing (again, examples, through war, or negligence).

Ok, I haven't been around here in a while and you might not know me, but I have to argue with this one. I am going to be joining the army in a couple months, to be a ranger. I fully realize that I will be deployed to a foreign country to either act as security or quell insurgent uprisings. I'm not doing it for the money (even though the sad truth is, I'll be making more then than I am now), or the recognition. I am doing it for the simple fact that our country needs to be defended and represented. If terrorists attack our country in such a bad way as 9-11, then we need to stand up and stick up for ourselves. If we were to simply stand by and accept it, we'd quickly become an underdog and our country wouldn't have nearly the amount of freedoms that we now enjoy. It's very easy for all of us (me included) to take what we have for granted.

I will concede the fact that war isn't pretty. Heck, even the people who voluntarily join the army wish there was another way. There is a branch of the army called psyops and their job is to try and use propoganda in order to get the enemy to surrender rather than fight.

Killing a fellow American isn't a good idea in my opinion. I understand if that person causes you anger, you will want harm to come to them. But killing a fellow American solves nothing.

Killing the enemy isn't a disregard for life; it shows a high regard for the lives of the people living in your country. Also, we are fighting to protect the freedoms of all the ethnicities living in America. Not just white people. We are fighting to protect every race in America, including the non-terrorist Middle Easterners who do not have any wishes to harm anybody, but want to live peacefully. People will argue with me on this, and that's fine; everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe we are trying to help the Iraqi citizens have their own power and say in their country.

I will also concede one point that hasn't been made here. Part of the Iraqi skirmish is oil. Almost everything in this world comes down to money. In the world, not just America. Therefore I acknowledge the fact that there is an alternate motive behind the war in Iraq besides just freedom for the people.

I, personally, however, will be fighting for the freedom of America, and the opressed peoples of the world.