Seasons

Will we do the same?

We already are. Darfur doesn't have any oil, so the West doesn't care two hoots that there's another genocide going on there. We did bugger all about Rwanda. The UK is (I think still, but if not until very recently,) sending asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe to be beaten and murdered by Mugabe's death squads. But what's the solution? Kill even more people?

I don't know what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure more killing isn't it. Stopping electing professional liars whose primary interest is to hold onto power and line their own pockets might be a start. But until the fizzyplexers arrive that isn't going to happen.

In the meantime all we can do is refuse to abuse. Don't lend legitimacy to the politicians' Orwellian arguments that we can fight a war to make peace. That's how Iraq went so very pear-shaped, and evil as Saddam was, more Iraqis are dying now than were before we toppled him. More even than before they hanged him - killing him didn't do much to improve the situation, did it?

Blair and Bush's legacy is that they actually managed to make a really bad situation, that no one imagined could get much worse, a lot worse. Astounding!
I won't publicly express the opinion that they should be tried as war criminals - I would apparently be in breach of the 2000 Terrorism Act and risking arrest were I to do so, but I see little to differentiate them from Saddam in moral terms. Assuming they have the same time to ruin Iraq that he did, they might just manage to get even more innocent blood spilt than he managed to shed.

*sighs* I never said that genocide was morally equivalent to eating a Big Mac. I said that both hinge on a single action, killing. The contexts are very different, however. Most people would agree that genocide is evil, and that eating a Big Mac isn't. But they both require someone/thing to be killed.

OK, try out this moral dilemma:

A train is coming to a Y intersection. On the track it is currently on (Track A), five people are tied to the tracks. On the other track (Track B), one man is tied to the tracks. You are standing beside the track switching lever.

I do think EVIL is real and alive.

Oh, yes!

It often seems to me that Gandhi is like a sign pointing in the right direction. He offered an alternative to the escalation of vengeance and conflict generally and showd that it could accomplish remarkable things. That's not to say that he offers a complete answer or that I agree with everything he said or did. But he does offer an alternative to "I'm going to get rid of nasty people by being even nastier than they are."

I just think it is a dangerous thing to pity, accept evil, and rationalize it.

I certainly wouldn't equate pity with acceptance. I think you can pity the person even while you utterly reject their actions. Or at least I try to.

Man at sometime is going to have to renounce the outlandish evils an develop some sort of societal inhibitions against it. It is not right to say, oh well, it's ok..we are all bad, what's a little genocide?

Amen to that! (though in fairness I haven't seen anyone remotely express that view here.)

Whether I eat ice cream out of hunger, or out of spite, or to fill some nagging emotional lack, I'm still eating ice cream. Killing something out of hunger or out of hatred is still killing. I consider it more dangerous not to recognize the commonalities. Otherwise it's far too easy to fall into an "us vs. them" trap. It's is NOT that both are right. It is that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I still can not agree. The old defense of "it is no different than...". I am guilty of hate. when I hate, not when I eat. I am guilty of murder when it is murder. Even the courts of law recognize the difference , and have categories of homicidal negligence, assault with intent, first degree murder.
If I say my eating is no different from Joe's killing spree, it's all killing. I have reduced Joes victims to the importance of a hamburger. To joe that is all they were. I have to consider human life too precious to say it is equal to, no different than, similar, has things in common with a hamburger.

See, you're actually agreeing with me. Killing can be murder, it can be manslaughter, it can be accidental, it can be for food, it can be a nuisance insect. It's still killing. This isn't to say that these actions are equivalent, just that they have a commonality.

Are you distinguishing killing humans from killing animals? It's ending a life either way. The way the life is ended and the kind of life determines the value judgment we place upon the action.

I still can not agree. The old defense of "it is no different than...".

Not to pick on you, Prob, but I think you are missing the point Psimagus made about pity and compassion not equaling acceptance. I don't think anyone is suggesting it is a defense to evil that there are common human elements in both "good" and "evil" and they exist on a continuum. Black and white is rare. Most things are various shades of gray.

Furthermore, just because good acts and evil acts can be done by the same person doesn't mean we should excuse the evil acts. It just means that we should recognize the common elements and try to understand the big picture of human nature. If we don't try to understand how these act happen and why, we will never stop them. People don't stop doing evil because they see others punished and are afraid. People stop doing neutral or minimally "bad" acts out of fear (maybe). For example, if I get caught speeding I may start to pay attention to the limit. Do you think that mother who abused and killed her child wake up and said, "Hey, no one has ever gotten into trouble by beating a child to death. It must be OK. I think I'll kill the 5 year old."? Do you think punishing that woman will stop all child abuse? I am not saying let her get away with it and not to put her in an institution for the rest of her life. I am saying look closer and see what else is going on so we can try to prevent other people from doing things like that.

If you write it all off as "evil" and separate the good guys from the bad, it becomes a matter of hunting down and killing the bad guys instead of trying to change the bigger factors that contribute and allow the bad acts to continue. It's not us against them. It's us against us. It's also us for us.

That is not to say do nothing. It is to say, be honest and see what is really there, and deal with it instead of pretending there are good guys and bad guys and if we just killed the devil all would be well in the world. That kind of thinking leads to witch hunts, wars and terrorism. You can't kill evil without killing everyone. You have to fight evil by accepting it's part of us all, and seeing how we should deal with it. The battle is internal as well as external, and without love and compassion we have already lost.

There is also redemption, even for in one who repeatedly commits great evil. The thing is it requires sincere repentance and exceptional commitment to change (and perhaps an elusive element we call "grace"). Redemption does not mean there are not consequences for past evil. It means trying to change future behavior and trying to make amends, where possible. Redemption is internal, a transformation and acceptance that can take place while one is in prison, or as one dies. It is not just saying "I'm sorry" and getting a "get out of jail free" card.

There is also great power in forgiveness. That does not mean allowing people to keep hurting you. It does not mean you do not seek a balance or justice (not vengeance, justice). It does not mean you do not hold others accountable. It means you let go inside yourself and transform beyond the pain. It means you can see the other as human and not simply evil. It means you let go of anger and pain and look the other in the eye and say "You have done wrong. You may still do wrong. I hope you never do it again. I cannot excuse what you did. But I forgive you." and let justice (or God since you believe that way) take care of it.

Redemption and forgiveness are not for whimps. Acceptance and integration of the shadow is not giving in and just being evil. It's not about avoidance and excuses. Seeing that there is potential for great good and great evil in everyone and seeing that there are not "good guys" and "bad guys" (though undoubtedly there is great evil done) is a brutal honesty that puts responsibility on you to seethe truth about yourself and others and says "This is so. This is human. This is you, not as you want to be but as you are. Now what are you going to do about it?"

Whether I want to accept the truth of my body, my mind, my habits or my potentials, it would do no good to accept only the good side. That simply isn't the whole truth. And some of these things are labels. And sometimes we make tough choices you can't weasel out of by denying the hypothetical, choices that effect others, choices that may help some and hurt others.

This one is for anyone (Ms. Problem hates hypotheticals ).

Say you are standing on the street and a car is speeding out of control. You see that it will hit 5 children in the road if you don't stop it. Next to you is a heavy man. You are not heavy enough to stop the car for sure by jumping in front of it, but the big guy is enough to slow the car down and save the kids. If you push the man in front of the car you can save the chilcren. Do you do it?

Please do not evaluate whether or not this is realistic. That's not the point. The point is if you had the choice to make, 1 life or 5, can you do it? Does it matter if it's pushing a button to reroute a train or pushing someone next to you? What if you just stand there and watch someone else make the choice? Does choosing to do nothing mean you had no choice?