"Unpatriotic Infidel"
So I seem to have struck a nerve, given the insults and actual threats of physical violence my little post provoked.
And all this came my way for merely pointing out (admittedly, with a whopping dose of sarcasm) a few things, which I'll state here as plainly as possible:
1) It's terribly sad that a family has lost its husband/ father. Each human being is irreplaceable, special, and valuable.
2) No award can be adequate recompense for any human life. If the exchange were reversible, I'd bet most folks would gladly turn in the awards to get back their loved one.
These two ideas can be reduced to a single overarching principle: Human life is not expendable.
These little notions really got folks riled up, largely because, in my humble opinion, they strike at some of the fundamentals of the brainwashing required to get people to kill other people. Militarization of morality requires the acceptance of the idea that human life is expendable. The lives of "the enemy" and even the lives of "the troops" must be viewed as expendable, in order to accept that people they don't know, people they do know, and they themselves may die as a result of their activities. To remain in touch with the preciousness of human life would result in the those actively engaged in the destruction of life remaining in touch with the horror and tragedy of what they're doing. And this would likely make it harder for these folks to do "their jobs". So the militarization process involves much desensitization to emotion, to violence, and to the value of life. But if you're got a militarized concept of "good", it's disturbing to be shown how something militarized culture indoctrinates as "good" is actually not so good. This kind of dissonance is uncomfortable, and those who've been indoctrinated to accept and glorify violence and disrespect for life can only be expected to respond with violence and disrespect towards the source of this discomfort.
Let's examine how this militarized idea that human life is expendable works across human cultures.
If one accepts that human life -- one's own and that of others -- is expendable in the name of one's cause, and that "giving up one's life" in an "act of heroism" in which one kills many of "the enemy" who are actively engaged in "propagating evil" will not only be "good", but may lead to some kind of posthumous reward and glorification, one would be psychologically prepared to man a high caliber machine gun and help slaughter 50 people before being shot and dying scared and alone, far from one's family. You'd also be psychologically prepared to fly an airplane into the pentagon. Or to blow one's self up on a crowded bus. Or to suffer the burden of having some more children.
Some criticisms I'd expect:
"But the WTC and the planes were full of innocent civilians": How many innocent civilian deaths in Iraq? Once one comes to view human lives as expendable, deaths of innocents become "unfortunate" but necessary, not tragic and immoral.
"You don't think there are causes worth dying for?": You mean aren't there causes worth killing for? I think there are causes worth dedicating one's life to. I don't think deaths are ever necessary for progress. People get killed (MLK) for just causes, just not voluntarily, and even when they "choose to die", it's because they have no choice: Give up the cause, or be killed (Insert favorite martyr here, e.g. Joan of Arc). I expect all of these folks would prefer to have kept the cause and not to have died. Further, these circumstances are merely a reversal of perspective: Any time someone is dying for a cause, someone else is killing for a cause. All "killing for a cause" involves subordinating the value of life.
"You're a wussy fag liberal unpatriotic pinko from San Francisco. I want to beat you up. And you're dumb." This really doesn't refute any of the ideas I've put forward. I'm happy to discuss ideas.
And all this came my way for merely pointing out (admittedly, with a whopping dose of sarcasm) a few things, which I'll state here as plainly as possible:
1) It's terribly sad that a family has lost its husband/ father. Each human being is irreplaceable, special, and valuable.
2) No award can be adequate recompense for any human life. If the exchange were reversible, I'd bet most folks would gladly turn in the awards to get back their loved one.
These two ideas can be reduced to a single overarching principle: Human life is not expendable.
These little notions really got folks riled up, largely because, in my humble opinion, they strike at some of the fundamentals of the brainwashing required to get people to kill other people. Militarization of morality requires the acceptance of the idea that human life is expendable. The lives of "the enemy" and even the lives of "the troops" must be viewed as expendable, in order to accept that people they don't know, people they do know, and they themselves may die as a result of their activities. To remain in touch with the preciousness of human life would result in the those actively engaged in the destruction of life remaining in touch with the horror and tragedy of what they're doing. And this would likely make it harder for these folks to do "their jobs". So the militarization process involves much desensitization to emotion, to violence, and to the value of life. But if you're got a militarized concept of "good", it's disturbing to be shown how something militarized culture indoctrinates as "good" is actually not so good. This kind of dissonance is uncomfortable, and those who've been indoctrinated to accept and glorify violence and disrespect for life can only be expected to respond with violence and disrespect towards the source of this discomfort.
Let's examine how this militarized idea that human life is expendable works across human cultures.
If one accepts that human life -- one's own and that of others -- is expendable in the name of one's cause, and that "giving up one's life" in an "act of heroism" in which one kills many of "the enemy" who are actively engaged in "propagating evil" will not only be "good", but may lead to some kind of posthumous reward and glorification, one would be psychologically prepared to man a high caliber machine gun and help slaughter 50 people before being shot and dying scared and alone, far from one's family. You'd also be psychologically prepared to fly an airplane into the pentagon. Or to blow one's self up on a crowded bus. Or to suffer the burden of having some more children.
Some criticisms I'd expect:
"But the WTC and the planes were full of innocent civilians": How many innocent civilian deaths in Iraq? Once one comes to view human lives as expendable, deaths of innocents become "unfortunate" but necessary, not tragic and immoral.
"You don't think there are causes worth dying for?": You mean aren't there causes worth killing for? I think there are causes worth dedicating one's life to. I don't think deaths are ever necessary for progress. People get killed (MLK) for just causes, just not voluntarily, and even when they "choose to die", it's because they have no choice: Give up the cause, or be killed (Insert favorite martyr here, e.g. Joan of Arc). I expect all of these folks would prefer to have kept the cause and not to have died. Further, these circumstances are merely a reversal of perspective: Any time someone is dying for a cause, someone else is killing for a cause. All "killing for a cause" involves subordinating the value of life.
"You're a wussy fag liberal unpatriotic pinko from San Francisco. I want to beat you up. And you're dumb." This really doesn't refute any of the ideas I've put forward. I'm happy to discuss ideas.
posted by Kenneth at 12:21 PM
<< Home