reply to post by Walkswithfish
These are interesting times.... eye for an eye and all that rot.
Indeed, which makes it quite astutely clear why the blind are leading the blind. The last man with one good eye, who's opponent cannot see to pluck
it out, will be king.
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
Your values and morals do not free you from the obligation that all living things must succumb to: kill or be killed.
Values and morals only exist as cultural constructs by which to guide social interaction within a tribe/society. They exist in part because we can
understand that other people outside of our own subjective emotional states, can similarly feel emotions such as pain, sorrow, guilt, happiness, love,
jealousy, etc. We can empathize with those emotions that others display.
And just what do you think it was that endowed us with such an ability as empathy? The exact same nature which endowed us with the instinct to hunt
and kill. The same nature which endowed us with the sense of reciprocity for our actions.
If you want to claim it to be human nature, our "obligation", to fight and kill each other, that's fine. In fact, I agree with it, despite being
far more complex than that. But if such is your stance, you don't get to cherry pick which behaviors to support just because they fit your argument.
You also have to factor in altruism. The "better angles" of our nature, as it were.
We all think about killing each other. And far more often than we'd like to admit - male and female both - if interviews and polls are to be
believed. So why aren't we slaughtering each other in the streets? Perhaps it's because while our urge to kill each other is there, people generally
don't like killing each other. It's not a very pleasant task, excepting at times for a rather small portion of the population who have trouble with,
or cannot process empathy for others. Such as psychopaths. And yes, there does seem to be a genetic component and difference in brain structure in
relation to the expression of empathy. (So it seems Dawkins was right, that selfish genes do not necessarily have to code for a selfish creature)
Yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that empathy and altruism guide us. There are far more factors and considerations which affect whether the "Angel
or Devil" wins out. Perhaps cued from certain stimuli in our tribal pasts, such as irrational fears or group mentalities, can play havoc with our
behaviors and push us into doing things we normally wouldn't think of. Fear of being raided by your tribal neighbors could inspire a pre-emptive
attack to weaken their numbers.
But there's another little trick we learned. It's called dehumanization. The stripping away of either your humanity, or your neighbor's humanity,
to quell the sensation of empathy and allow you to slaughter them with impunity. You're no longer killing people... you're eradicating scum,
exterminating vermin, or removing parasites. Or you allow the monster to take possession of you, to do what must be done. You become just a faceless
cog in the war machine. Conformity in uniform and face paintings... they're basically the same expression. And this is further reinforced by the
deferment of responsibility. It's easier to subvert your own morality when you are provided an avenue by which to shift the burden of the act. It's
not your call, just following orders. It's one of the reasons why old men declare wars, but it's the young men must go and fight them. There's more
to it that just cowardice and greed that so many want to attribute it to.
If you haven't, you really ought to check out the studies leading up to, and culminating in the Stanford Prison Experiment. And while you're at it,
look up the statistics on the rates of killings between modern tribal people who use dehumanization techniques before going into war. Especially the
statistics regarding the rates of mutilation and torture among those tribes who actively change their appearance vs. those who don't.
Further... I have to evoke Hume's Guillotine on you. "Is" and "Ought" are not synonymous. Just because we can accept murder "Is" a fact of
life, it does not follow that we "Ought" to just accept it without trying to mitigate that behavior - nor that we "Ought" to wield it in equal
measure back upon the instigator. Whether we kill the killers in eye for an eye justice is a cultural and policy matter to debate and make concessions
for in the public forum as a state or a nation. However, you're seemingly willing to ignore the moral implications of such a decision by trying to
use nature to justify your position. Nature only applies to the affirmation of "Is", but has no logical or causal implications on the "Ought".
--------------------------
As for my opinion on whether or not John Allen should have been executed? I would suggest no, were the decision up to me. But it's not. The crime did
not occur in my state, nor am I related to or affiliated with the victims or their families. I don't feel it's my place to make that decision.
