Forum - View topic

NEWS: Politically-charged Manga Suspended in Japan

Your position (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be that there are relative moral considerations with regard to atrocious behaviour. That some atrocities are mandated by the need to avoid greater atrocities.

My position, as previously stated, is absolute: there are no relative stages of atrocity, whether in terms of numbers of victims or military considerations. No atrocity is "greater" or "lesser" than another - because thinking that way invites using the atrocities of others to justify jumping on the bandwagon and committing one's own atrocities.

Well, sticking with the school bus example, the point I desired to make was that the first situation (mad killer with hostages -> you have to kill him to save them) you described was the morally unassailable one. The counter-example that I raised (taking the killer's family as counter-hostages) was to illustrate the fact that atrocity does not justify atrocity. I still think it makes the point quite well.

When you create a stylized hypothetical situation for the sake of argument, you must accept that others use the circumstances of that hypothetical situation to make their own points, by extending the analogy. That's what I did. If the results weren't to your liking, you should have picked a better example.

Leaving aside the "human shield" question - because that is truly a sticky wicket, with no good moral answer

The problem is intentionally targeting civilians. That isn't "on the low moral end of the scale" - it's an atrocity by definition.

To believe that a monster will ever be anything but a monster, to think that you can employ monstrous methods without irreparably tainting yourself morally, is truly naïve. Once you employ the services of monsters, you become a monster yourself. You may not notice it, but the moral decay will have set in, the moment you make the decision to allow such tactics.

Quote:

But where do you get the wisdom or privilege to lend definitions to the semantics, then? Some people seem to believe that "justice" entails murdering your daughter because she desires to be literate while tolerating the existance of homosexuals is an "atrocity."

Hmm. I'm not the only person who can use cultural stereotypes to tar entire populations with a big brush, eh?

Let's see, could you be referring to Fred Phelps' crowd? No, they haven't murdered any daughters, yet. Or was there some other population group you were thinking of?

Good question - one that has been the topic of debate for centuries now. The current agreed-upon consensual answer is in the form of the Geneva Conventions for the subject of warfare, and in the form of the local penal code, for civilian murder. Does that answer your question?

Obviously from the above, war crimes tribunals have a lot of attendant problems. But do we have a better solution?

If we're ever going to win over the terrorists, it will be through moral superiority - by not descending to their level. Otherwise it's just another phase in an endless cycle of revenge kilings.

It's an accident of war when the same bomb was intended for another, legitimate target (barring gross negligence, of course).

My position, however, is that there can be no justification for atrocity, and a civilised person or state must take responsibility for his/its atrocities - by standing trial for war crimes (if an individual) or by offering reparations and apologies (if a state).

Quote:

I beg to differ. The problem is that you can not ultimately defeat evil with more evil. The "best" outcome of a strictly evil v. more evil conflict would ultimately be a nihilistic solution, I suppose. That's not acceptable in my opinion.

Mmm... We're saying the same thing with different words. Let me try again:

You should not attempt to fight evil with evil, because the net result is only more evil.

mlund wrote:

Quote: You are right - once war is joined, the probability of atrocities occurring approaches unity. But that this is logically true does not make it morally correct. Agreed. It may, however, be the only thing left holding the line keeping the free world from jackboots and gas chambers. It isn't right and it shouldn't be the eternal status quo - but it is also better than many alternatives that history has shown us.

Ah, the pragmatic argument. I'm not free from this, myself. As previously stated, I'd be unable to stand up to my own high moral standards, given sufficiently aggravated circumstances. But that doesn't invalidate those standards, it merely highlights my human imperfection.

mlund wrote:

To the counter-point, however, if I were to refuse to "push the button," I would also think myself to be an accomplice to the horror that would come. I would find no measure of peace with my life and I would lay the blame at the feet of my own lack of scruples.

Surely, not "lack of scruples", but rather "surfeit of scruples"?

mlund wrote:

Just how much is my soul worth when measured in the blood of innocents, I wonder?

Hmm. This begs the question: can one become a sort of twisted version of a "hero", by accepting the onus of an intolerable moral dilemma and making the abhorrent but practically necessary decision required by the situation - thereby damning oneself but saving one's fellows?

abunai wrote:

Your position (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be that there are relative moral considerations with regard to atrocious behaviour. That some atrocities are mandated by the need to avoid greater atrocities.

That's fair enough. I accept as part of reality that there are circumstances where men are forced by other men and circumstance to choose between evils, and that it is best to choose the lesser of those evils.

Quote:

My position, as previously stated, is absolute: there are no relative stages of atrocity, whether in terms of numbers of victims or military considerations. No atrocity is "greater" or "lesser" than another - because thinking that way invites using the atrocities of others to justify jumping on the bandwagon and committing one's own atrocities.

While I understand the reasoning, I can't say that I accept it as truth. This is a disagreement of fundmental values.

{hostage discussion snipped for brevity}
Bringing it back to anime and manga for a moment, this theme comes up even in Ah Megami-sama! manga - the pact between the Angels and Demons in which their "lives" are held hostage against one another.

Quote:

When you create a stylized hypothetical situation for the sake of argument, you must accept that others use the circumstances of that hypothetical situation to make their own points, by extending the analogy. That's what I did. If the results weren't to your liking, you should have picked a better example.

You assume too much of your success in doing so, here, I'm afraid.

Quote:

The problem is intentionally targeting civilians. That isn't "on the low moral end of the scale" - it's an atrocity by definition.

Atrocities are on the low end of the moral scale, at least on mine. I can't say the same for everyone else on the planet. Some people believe that civilians ought to be the primary target of their violence and oppression whenever possible.

And yet we needed Stalin to stop Hitler, other monsters to stop the Soviets, and so on it goes - we get to the price of escaping the jackboot further down.

Quote:

Good question - one that has been the topic of debate for centuries now. The current agreed-upon consensual answer is in the form of the Geneva Conventions for the subject of warfare, and in the form of the local penal code, for civilian murder. Does that answer your question?

It begs the follow-up - what makes Geneva "right" and something else "wrong?" What about people who did not sign up for the Geneva convention? Is this mandate derived from the Tyranny of the Majority, Natural Law, Divine Right, or simple Force of Arms?

Quote:

Obviously from the above, war crimes tribunals have a lot of attendant problems. But do we have a better solution?

Obviously war and atrocities have a lot of attendant problems. But do we have a better solution?

I'd like it to always be true, and to have always been true. I'd like to strive to keep the bar high, and never have to stoop to that level again. However, I recognize the reality that sometimes societies are unwilling to take the steps necessary to preserve a true and lasting peace in the world. Historically, humans have a knack for turning a blind eye to the rot and cancers in the world until the time to avoid great horrors has long past.

Quote:

If we're ever going to win over the terrorists, it will be through moral superiority - by not descending to their level. Otherwise it's just another phase in an endless cycle of revenge kilings.

The problem is that when you are dead and the less moral are writing the history books, controlling the media, and expunging your existance from the pages of history, the likelihood of victory through moral superitory dims greatly.

I agree that we have to win through moral superiority, but I consider that military might has a role to play there too. I'm thankful that the scale of conflict and military strength makes it possible to "pull punches" and keep the moral high ground without risking greater tragedy. I also recognize that sometimes the circumstances are not as fortunate.

Quote:

It's an accident of war when the same bomb was intended for another, legitimate target (barring gross negligence, of course).

So then we agree that the intended outcome of the action affects the moral status of the action? If it is purely about means and results, bombs kill and dead civilians are dead civilians. Once we agree that intended consequence color the morality of an action, we're left to argue the semantics involved in the equations.

The alternative of letting evil simply win and oppress the world and then wait for the system to rot itself out - that option does not appeal to me.

Quote:

Ah, the pragmatic argument. I'm not free from this, myself. As previously stated, I'd be unable to stand up to my own high moral standards, given sufficiently aggravated circumstances. But that doesn't invalidate those standards, it merely highlights my human imperfection.

Of course it doesn't invalidate those standards. Hypocrisy does not invalidate a postulate or theory.

However, I find it very difficult to cast stones at people for doing something that, deep down in my soul, I know that I might do if faced with the exact same capabilities and consequences. Instead I find it much easier to pass judgment on people who I believe have a "worse" set of moral values supporting their conduct than my own - people who make decisions that I would not make given identical capabilities and consequences.

Quote:

mlund wrote: To the counter-point, however, if I were to refuse to "push the button," I would also think myself to be an accomplice to the horror that would come. I would find no measure of peace with my life and I would lay the blame at the feet of my own lack of scruples. Surely, not "lack of scruples", but rather "surfeit of scruples"?

No. I could very well judge it to be a lack of a particularly vital scruple that renders a man unable to sacrifice his own soul for the sake of others.

Quote:

mlund wrote: Just how much is my soul worth when measured in the blood of innocents, I wonder? Hmm. This begs the question: can one become a sort of twisted version of a "hero", by accepting the onus of an intolerable moral dilemma and making the abhorrent but practically necessary decision required by the situation - thereby damning oneself but saving one's fellows?

The concept of the "anti-hero" is no stranger to modern literature and pop-culture. These are the guard-dog monsters that are kept on a leash to protect the innocent for even worse monsters who have been unleashed on the world.

I'm Danish, not Dutch. Apartheid was in South Africa, not the Netherlands.

Tell me, what is wrong with my expressing a pious hope that the average American has a higher moral standard than GATSU?

True - but that is, I'm afraid, a straw man argument. If you really want to compare that school bus situation to something like the firebombing of Dresden, then you should ask: if a man is about to blow up a busload of school children, is it all right to hold his wife and children hostage, threatening to kill them, if he follows through on his plan?

Yes, it's all right to kill our hypothetical schoolbus mass murderer, to stop him - but you leave his family alone.

Yes, it's all right to bomb enemy military sites - but you don't bomb civilians.

That is correct - but these idealised situations do not match up with the reality of atrocities. The Dresden bombing raid was not targeted at combatants. It had one objective, and that was to terrorize and demoralize the enemy.

Arthur Harris knew this quite well, when he planned the raid. Earlier, I referred to eyewitness accounts of his remark: "We'll Copenhagen them." He knew perfectly well that the sole objective was to bring the enemy to his knees by striking at wives and children.

What kind of war is that? Answer: Not my kind. Anyone who makes war like that has given up all claim to humanity.

You argue beautifully, yet it seems to me that you are engaged in the same argument that I earlier declined to accept from GATSU, namely that there are degrees of atrocities. That there can be a "lesser" atrocity, which is justified by the moral imperative to avoid a "larger" atrocity.

I cannot accept this. You call it a metric of life, death and freedom. I say that such things cannot be measured in gross numbers. One unjust killing, or a million - it makes no difference. Murder is murder.

A soldier is someone who kills in circumstances which we have generally accepted as "just" (though I have grave personal difficulties with this viewpoint, I accept it as the way of the world). There are rules that govern his killing, rules that are (or ideally should be) inculcated by training, clarified by specific rules of engagement and enforced by a military justice system.

A murderer is someone who kills unjustly, whose killing cannot be morally sanctioned.

Once you claim that the bombing of Dresden was justified, how will you call the World Trade Center bombing unjustified? Both were actions whose sole purpose was to attack an enemy's civilians, with the intent of terrorizing and demoralizing the enemy.

Personally, I think Hitler made a grave mistake with the Blitz. Far from demoralising the British, it fanned their will to fight.

The tribunal that ordered the death of Nicolae Ceasescu, for instance, was a kangaroo court - however guilty he was, he deserved a fair trial.

We know that the United States colluded with Japanese war criminals at the Tokyo trials, failing to prosecute them for their crimes, in return for research data on biological warfare.

Ask Israel how much safety they've managed to produce for themselves by using the same tactics as their opponents.