BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:43 AM

Yes, Ellen, but my quote (pseudo quote?) refers not just to traitors from within. When I first heard it the person who said it referred to Jews and Arabs whose cultures have a lot of parallel history, way back in time. You could say it also about Jews and Christians with the Old Testament of the Bible referring to Jewish society. Also, my memories of sitting around at Uni with a bunch of social lefties and the Trotskyists arguing with the Socialists arguing with the Communists etc etc ad infinitum. They wouldn't argue so long and hard with the Liberals (who are the conservative party here) because they would assume that the divide was too deep to try to argue or convince or persuade.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:30 AM

"Another thought: I have heard it said that the most extreme disagreements/wars are between the people with the most similar beliefs. We can agree to differ with people with completely different views but when someone with similar views comes along we argue the toss about the smallest details."

Helen

Thanks so much for your imput, Helen. This thread has kind of wandered all over the place to the point that I haven't been adding to it. But this last part of your posting really hit me.

I think there is something important here about how factions of essentially the same belief system can be as deadly as those whose beliefs are more dissimiliar. It's as if one is far more of a traitor to a cause if it originates as dissent amongst the ranks.
Perhaps that's also why a lot of revolutions actually succeed when it's a portion of the "oppressors" who turn against their own, either out of self preservation, or out of a change of heart and belief...

It's certainly the case with Hitler that he was hurt just as much, if not more, by the officers he considered his closest allies. I imagine that the "Et tu Brute's" of the world have had quite a hand in changing the course of our history.

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:05 PM

Yeah. When two people argue, there are three opinions in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

Some thoughts I've had from reading this thread, which may or may not be on topic.

Yesterday I watched a clever video called Babakiueria. It is a satirical look at what Australian society would be like if the Aboriginal people of Australia were the dominant social group.

It turns the tables on what society here is like. What if white people had no power in our society and black people did? What if television had token whites instead of token blacks? What if white people's children were taken away from them "for their own good"? etc etc . If in fact the Aboriginal people were the dominant group, then as a generalisation only, I cannot imagine them making the same power based decisions as the white people have made. Their social culture seems different from the white tradition of revering power and powerful people, although I know how limited my knowledge of their culture is.

The title Babakiueria comes from the opening situation of the video. White people having a barbecue in a barbecue area and the Aboriginal people come up the bay in a little boat, plant the Aboriginal flag to claim this land, and ask the locals what they call this place. They answer "barbecue area" so then the Aboriginal people call the whole country Babakiueria. (This is based on the story/belief that that is how the kangaroo got its name. A white bloke asked a black fella what it was called and the reply was "kangaroo", meaning, "I don't know".)

It was written by Geoffrey Atherden who also wrote (I think) the recent tv series called Grass Roots, about the power plays in microcosm which occur in local government councils.

EP, it's interesting that you mention Colin Wilson's book, The Outsider. I wrote my Honours year dissertation for English Lit on the hero as outsider in fiction, specifically Ursula Le Guin's fiction. I just started re-reading her book called The Dispossessed which I focused on in my paper.

Another thought: I have heard it said that the most extreme disagreements/wars are between the people with the most similar beliefs. We can agree to differ with people with completely different views but when someone with similar views comes along we argue the toss about the smallest details.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:32 PM

here are some excerpts from the Mahabarata and from machiavelli - on the moral dilemma theme. These touch on dilemmas for leaders - for us, as the led, we have our own dilmmas (mentioned at the end).

Krsna replied... "If he fights fairly, Bhîma will never succeed in gaining victory. If, however, he fights unfairly, he will surely be able to kill Duryodhana. ".....
Krsna seeing the Pândavas stricken with remorse, said.... "Out of the desire to do you good, I repeatedly applied my illusory powers and caused them to be killed by various means in battle. If I had not adopted such deceitful ways, you would never have been victorious, nor could you have regained your kingdom or your wealth." ,,,,,,,

He continued, "You should not mind the fact that your enemy has been killed deceitfully. When one is outnumbered by his enemies, then destruction should be brought about by stratagem. "
The Mahâbhârata, translated by Chakravarthi V. Narasimhan, "Shalya Parva" [Columbia University Pres, 1965, p.172 & 175]

we now have established rules of war - but not every military force follows them.

another expression of this kind of dilemma comes in Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince:

It must be understood, however, that a prince... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion in order to preserve the state. Thus he must be disposed to change according as the winds of fortune and the alternations of circumstance dictate. As I have aleady said, he must stick to the good so long as he can, but being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of evil...

Machiavelli himself did not admire tyrants and did not endorse an amoral opportunism. Thus, the implication of amorality or immorality in the passage above, although very limited if it is read carefully, contrasts with a passage in Machiavelli's own Discourses:

...those are held to be infamous and detestable who extirpate religion, subvert kingdoms and republics, make war on virtue, on letters, and on any art that brings advantage and honour to the human race, i.e. the profane, the violent, the ignorant, the worthless, the idle, the coward.

A genuine moral dilemma arises when a wrong must be committed, not just for any purpose, but unavoidably for a genuinely good purpose.
as well as considering the moral dilemma, anyone considering such a moral dilemma carries the burden of comparing which is the greater or lesser of two evils, and of self examination to see what their motive truly is, and then living with the crap that follows from disrupting or exposing a rotten system.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:10 AM

sorry , wrong thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:07 AM

at our co-op, we've talked about using one of the properties to provide free accomodation to a couple of nurses, who could be close and keep their eye on any people who need care, in exchange for the accom.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 02:19 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 05:59 AM

You know, I have no idea why we seem to need an "other", freightdawg. I do think it is certainly something in ourselves that scares us, and that's why we need to create these monsters under the beds to focus on instead. It's also why our current government is using fear once again to keep us huddled behind our doors because if we get out and start talking together (or singing, yes, Freda, I absolutely agree we need more music and voices raised in song...this is a proven mode of increasing our seratonin levels, among other things)we will see beyond the differences.

Little Hawk, PLEASE try again! I know how frustrating it is to write something out, getting it just right, and then..whoops! It's in the Net-Ether somewhere. But I've always found your comments to be thought-provoking and helpful.

I'm reading a book by Sheri S. Tepper, who is just amazing at putting into ideas words far more interesting than mine, something that has stuck with me. She said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have the book with me). Humans still believe they are perfectable, even though nothing has really changed in their evolutionary make-up for all these thousands of years. We are virtually the same now as we always were. I am in agreement with her on this, and it puts me at odds with several of my more optimistic friends who are still convinced that our actions can change the world beneficially. I just don't see it.

Oh, dear, I'm in too much of a funk today to write more. Sorry...ellen (PS-Come on, Deckman, put down that cannon, and play with us!)

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:51 PM

Allow me a little digression...

Who would you consider the master of terror and suspense? For many, it is not the slasher, blood and mayhem novelists, but Alfred Hitchcock. Why? Because he knew how to bring the terror out from within his viewers. He understood that the most terrifying thing we can imagine is...the terror we can imagine.

Why do we need an "other" to exclude and vilify? Could it not be because we see in him/her/it something of ourselves that we really wish we did not see? Thus the terror from without is really the terror from within.

Now, what in the world was I thinking about......

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 06:20 PM

..my attrib to Hannibal L was a little comment on the sociopathic potential of that view, EP - I don't think HL ever made that comment!!

not when we last lunched..

i think that all schoolchildren should be taight to play an instrument, sing, or play chess, and that in every country there should be claculated programs for them to perform in choirs, orchestras, chess matches with children from nearby suburbs/countries/differing cultures.

we could breed out war by doing things like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:29 PM

You're getting into some good stuff here, Ellenpoly. I typed a fairly lengthy comment awhile back, hit "submit"...and it vanished into hyperspace. (Sigh!) I will maybe get back on this later...not enough time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:50 AM

HEY! Stop bothering me with all these questions. I'm trying to find time to play with my toy soldiers and tanks in my sandbox!! SSSHHHHUUUUHHHH!. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:37 AM

"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" That's from Hamlet, so Hannibal Lector stole from the best. Just thought I'd let you know that, Freda.

Being a great cat lover,(actually I worship them, but don't tell anyone) and also a general animal lover, I have always had the most trouble with my human family. I find myself hiding away more and more because I don't know how to handle people emotionally any more. Why this is, is probably down to watching too much telly, reading too many books, and surfing too many political and news websites. The more I hear, the more I fear. (Naa, not really-"Fear is the little death"-Frank Herbert).
If we can't even figure out who's pulling the strings, how in hell do we have the slightest chance of cutting them?

One of you nice people suggested I look at some Native American tribes for alternative social/political dynamics, and I am, thank you. The more I read, the more I know there is to read on the subject of Power and the Individual, vs Power and the Group. I just finished reading one intriguing website- (http://www.artemiscreations.com/scienceofmatriarchy/) which was very thought provoking on how our species may have developed, and just where aggression really began to stick it's nose in. A couple of others, I'll mention here, but only if you're interested...more on the idea of matriarchy, or matrilineage and how it differs, in theory anyway, from patriarchies; (http://www.promatriarchy.net/comparison/war_or_peace/saharasia.html)
(http://www.promatriarchy.net/essentials/matriarchy.html)

We may be operating on instinct, but it appears male and female instincts are different enough to impact mightily on society. This was not a great surprise to me, having read enough and studied enough over the years on different forms of cultural anthropology, but I am still fascinated by alternate possibilities.

Again the questions that persist- we have always seemed to have needed a belief system, something to explain the unexplainable. Most of these systems have a deity or deities who are more powerful than we are. They are really in control, and one way or another, it is our responsibility to follow their rules, and keep them sweet.
"As above so below"? Is our creation of powerful figures who we follow and adore (and sometimes fear) simply a recreation on the earthly plane of the leader/deity?

Okay, my head is exploding. I have a feeling I may have lost most of you guys, now that I'm wanting to go further afield than who did what to whom historically, but I'm hoping there may be some interest to follow in this line...if not, well, it's been swell....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:46 AM

well, you could also say, nothing is good or bad, its just our thoughts that we project which make a thing so. (quote from Hannibal Lecter)

..and there is always an exception. but you could say that the exceptions are the chimps that sit on the other side of the tree and have accepted their role..

or then, everything is an exception, and there are no rules.. but thats when the instinctual ones take over..

my cat is sitting in front of my keyboard and there are little cat hairs between the keys.

she is a beautiful exception. but she still waits for the other cat to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM

...it is a psychological trait inherent within all of us (male and female) that looks toward a single leader.

Another generalisation there. About the only thing you can truly say of "all of us" is that we are born and we die.

If we need a Bad Guty, and an externmal one isn't readily apparant, is inside us.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:40 AM

there's always a head chimp, some people hanging around the head chimp, and then the disempowered ones.

I even watch my cats play this game - whenever a new cat comes to our co-op, they fight until one establishes dominance, and the new one settles into a corner that is their own.

women in groups play it among themselves too. while i am fundamentally loyal to other women, and my close friends are women, i think these power games happen in any group of people. but our different discussions on this thread have highlighted our different ways of thinking.

people operate in their own small circles, or larger circles. the real power games are happening on a grand scale, globally, and nationally.

it is easy to observe power networks within the closer circles. it is scary to step into the big circles - these are connected to media, bureaucracies, Godzilla governments, big business, and have their global power mechanisms.

the moral dilemma part is to what extent does does a little gnat caught up in the moonlight squeak before being flattened by the huge mega Godzilla that is leaving bodies in its trail?

easier to go out & listen to moosic...

fre da people

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:19 AM

Ah, freightdawg...thank you! That was such a good posting! It explained so much about...so much! Thank you. This is exactly where I wanted to go, and you offered some important, thoughtful, intriguing ideas.

I hope more people will write in with their own perceptions, because I really do think this is an important issue. I will also add that what you brought up about children's pecking orders on the playground is kind of what I had in mind when I referred to the "alpha male" way back in my first(?) posting...We are social animals, and take away the rather thin veneer of what we've created in the past few thousand years, the need for a leader hasn't changed much.

Nature or nuture? I offer that up towards discussion on the individual leader. Whether that charisma you spoke of leads the leader towards the organization and maintenence of an inclusive community (vs exclusive) based on group needs and built on group talents...or takes the road towards despotism and an ego-driven, force-maintained hierarchy may well be more about the influences surrounding the rearing of the leader him/herself.

And the funny thing is that being fear-driven, as you mentioned towards reasoning why soldiers follow orders that may be against their own personal feelings, is BOTH Nature and Nuture, making it doubley hard to break. Fear has proven to be such a compelling factor in our make-up that it leads not only to anger and violence, but to a more complicated set of reasoning, (ie-brainwashing) that will provide acceptable answers towards fulfilling despicable ends.

I always think of "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It is such a reasoned formula and makes so much sense that it scares the bejiggers out of me. Like the "Art of War", and "Mein Kampf", and "The Communist Manifesto"...all so well thought out, so easy to be taken as a guide to life, if you will. We like to think that books like the New Testament, The Torah, the Koran, etc, (though the first two were written by several people at least) offer alternative moral/societal choices...(even though they've been subborned by some of the writers of the first list into their own theories). But...sorry, trying to organize a through-thought here- They are all about the summoning and organization of power. They are all built on an US vs THEM code of belief and behavior. They are all (arguably) exclusive, rather than inclusive communities.

Another book by Colin Wilson to throw into the mix-and just for it's title at the moment-"The Outsider", goes to my point (finally I'm getting to my point?) Does there always HAVE to be an OTHER? And if so, is the definition of the "other" really one of the major things at the core of what establishes the tribe and its' leader?

I have a theory, and it goes loosely like this-the only way we will ever be able to become a whole as a species, is if we can (because we seem to need to) establish the "other" as an Alien Species-preferably not one on earth. If we need a "bad guy", and I'm being most simplistic here, would we be not best served by creating the outsider as FAR outside as possible?? Now, needless to say, if ever the time comes that some other life-form does make an entrance on our planet, we would hardly welcome them with open arms (and the arms we might have developed would in themselves have cost waaay too much...unless we could convince people that our only form of defense is a mental one...but I'm not here to start a thread on good science fiction as an alternative political force...or am I? Whew! Too much coffee this morning...but if you can winnow out my thoughts here, and care to comment on any or all of it, I'd be grateful...ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 05:30 PM

Ellen,

Thanks for the explanation and clarification. Your first post of 18 Feb. made a lot of sense and I can see where us "boys" kind of got off track, at least this "boy." One difference between the male and female genders is that men tend to be detail and "crisis" oriented while females tend to be process and "event" oriented. [NOTE: the above statement is a generalization, and any one example of a gender could be very different from my description - FD] What I mean is this, when I am confronted with a problem I tend to look no further than its immediate source and most proximate solution. My wife, on the other hand, is much more deliberate and attempts to find the more extended history and more tangent solutions. This is no small source of irritation to me when I want to get something FIXED now. I see this not only documented in scholarly publications, but also in any room full of 5 year old girls and boys.

So, Ellen, when I saw the mention of Hitler, et. al., I zeroed in on a historical person (or event, as in the case of the bomb) and his/her/its relation to history and in the process kind of just blipped right over your intention.

In response to your next to last post, I think you are absolutely correct in stating that it is a psychological trait inherent within all of us (male and female) that looks toward a single leader. In times of crises in particular, but also in times of peace, we congregate around someone who demonstrates vision, clarity of thought, decisiveness, and for want of a better term, charisma. I do not think this is a bad thing, per se. Like so many of our human quirks and "instincts," I believe it is truly an amoral trait. For much of our existance it is so automatic that we do not even recognize it. Little boys on a playground will select two "leaders" to choose up sides for a baseball game. They may not be the best players, but they may be recognized for choosing the best teams, or because they own the baseball and bats, or they may be the neighborhood bullies. Ever watch little girls at a sleepover? Within 15 minutes you can identify the exact pecking order of perceived social standing within the group, from the dominant "mother hen" to the shy little "wallflower." I may be overstating my case here, but I just think it is so inherent within us that it is part of what makes us human. I do not think it can be identified as a failing because it is the visionaries, the real decisive people that have kept our species alive as long as it has existed. (think of the harnessing of fire as a tool, to the discovery of penicilin.) They also are responsible for all we consider art. Vision and decision and charisma make us human and we could no more remove them from our psyches than we could remove our brain.

Now, the real crux of this discussion is our moral evaluation of the results of these visionaries, decision makers, and charismatics. You said, and I think correctly, that many will follow orders because they believe the leader and want to perpetuate the atrocities we have been discussing. Likewise, some see the brilliance and positive results of the vision of their leader and want to reap its benefits. Others, and please do not discount this, follow orders to stay alive. Those who challenged Hitler or Hussein were not thanked for their constructive criticism. Is one decision more moral than the other? If you gas Jews just to stay alive does that make you less culpable? Conversely, if you fought to free the slaves were you more moral than a Confederate rebel? This, among others, was the great question at Nuremburg.

And so, Ellen, one of my super-simplistic and testosterone driven male answers to your very interesting question is the mystical world of morality. Why was there a Hitler? begs the question of Why was there a Lincoln? Gandhi and King were cut from the same bolt of cloth as Osama Bin Laden, yet we in the west view Gandhi and King as moral and Bin Laden as immoral. When we begin to break down cultures and sub-cultures and eventually get to each individual we see larger and larger differences as to what we consider moral, or acceptable, and immoral, or unacceptable. I, for one, consider the use of the atomic bomb to be moral based on what it prevented and what it ended. I would assume you would consider it immoral based on what it caused, and its larger statement of the futility of war. For every "X" that I think is immoral, there is likely someone else who thinks it is not only moral, but necessary.

If, and that is a big if, I am correct, the question moves from a psychological one to a metaphysical one, and I am running low on brain cells right now.

Thanks again, and my best regards,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM

EP -- please check out the tribal power structures of the Navajo and Nez Perce, to name two.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM

Thanks for your input yet again, Freda. I do think you caught the drift of my idea rather more accurately than most of the others.

I would like to add, and I actually did say this in an earlier letter, that I am not unaware of women as warriors. In the past, they have not only fought alongside their men, but were often the power behind the throne. Our gender is not either unaffected by what goes on around us, or uninvolved, either through our fathers, brothers, or sons being sent, or volunteering to fight, or having to decide not to fight for causes they believe in, or are manupulated into believing in. But there are other forces working on most of us women, internal ones, that make it a lot harder to follow an aggressive path.

I don't think you can find one area in our lives that is dominated by women, except the actual process of childbirth. Not one. You might think so, but even the "housewife" is a creation of our times.

Now I do have some theories about the Tribe, and how I think a lot of our problems today have stemmed from the movement away from that form of life. But even there, something happened way back that changed the dynamics from a possible Matriarchy to a definite Patriarchy-Big Time-big enough to have stayed with us for millenia. I'd have to go back to a "What if" situation to determine what our world would be like if things had developed differently and women ran the world, or even if we ran it in tandum, but we are where we are, and we need to go from here.

That's it-just more thoughts....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:40 AM

well hi, Ellenpoly, and the boys...

when i saw the reactions to Ellenpoly's comments i though "eek" and ran away and hid for a while.

but i found it interesting that EP heard my thoughts, and I heard hers, while you others were arguing on another level. for various reasons I had my original comment to this thread deleted (glad you read it, EP, before it went).

yes, as well as maggie thatchers there are also female butchers attached to peoples armies in some countries. i came across one in a previous job, a female Maoist in India, in an area where the Maoists slaughtered people and stuck their heads on stakes outside their villages. she was a fighter in a bloodthirsty cause.

EP & I were discussing together what happens when our own country is perpetrating human rights violations, and how do the people working within the admin of those facilitating govt bodies deal with that - as they become part of the perpetration machinery.

tough question.

I'm glad EP asked it.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 06:20 AM

"You guys GET OFF on WAR!"

Don't ever forget Maggie Thatcher. Or the ladies handing out White Feathers in the Great War.

.................................

No doubt when Saddam gets put on trial - assuming he hasn't worked out some deal in advance that involves keeping schtum - he'll be saying very much the same stuff about Halabja, and that kind of thing, as has been said about Hiroshima. All about how it's the duty of a ruler in a time of war, and in the cause of holding his country together to do horrible things sometimes, in order to avert worse consequences. The high and lonely duty...

There's always an excuse to be dredged out. And often enough there's some truth in it. But...

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:34 AM

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952), The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.
George Bernard Shaw

History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today.
Henry Ford (1863 - 1947), Interview in Chicago Tribune, May 25th, 1916

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

Alright gentlemen, I do see that I've whipped up a hornet's nest here.
First of all, let me clarify something. I did not mean to imply that I thought any of you were war mongers, or that you enjoyed the idea of people being killed, or that you wanted to be in on the killing in any way, shape or form.
I've read enough threads on mudcat to know most of the people who read and write here are thoughtful, reasoning, fairly intelligent souls.
I was wrong to go off on that tangent, and I apologize.

But when I began this thread, I was searching for something about what makes people tick. Why it is that there seems to be certain people at certain times that have the ability to marshall powerful forces, for good or ill, and in the doing, lead or drive entire societies behind them. It was a psychological question more than I think a historical one. But I phrased it badly, as I may be doing now, and what followed by a lot of you, were a slew of history lessons about that happened in wars, and it got into a line of debate that I can understand how I initiated with my "What if" postulation. Mea Culpa on that as well.

And when I said I felt physically ill, I was referring more to the feeling that our species seems to be stuck in a pattern it can't seem to break. That we (and let's face it, the "we" is more male than female") have an on-going fascination with aggression in all it's forms. It doesn't surprise me, nor do I want to lay blame on anyone. I am not, or I've always strived not to be, an intolerant person, even against intolerant people (not meaning any of you). I wrote more out of a sense of mourning. I mourn the loss of so many. I mourn the fact that there have been struggles initated and carried through to horrific ends. I mourn that it seems we do not learn from our history enough to figure out how to stop the horror, whether it's manifest through military aggression, political agendas, religious "traditions", territorial imperatives, or just survival of the fittest.

    The theory that there are often good reasons for wars is so hard for me, not from a realistic point of view-I'm not naive enough to think that a regeme like Hitler's or Stalin's should not have been fought against, but that it often seems more time is spent ruminating about those past pieces of history, than what is spent on practical application towards changing our future as a potentially pacific species, (and so here we are, yet again, sending people into battle). I think it needs to be dealt with at a deeper level, and I don't know if it's possible. I don't know if we can change certain natures. I feel I'm off on another tangent here, and again I apologise.

    Here in England, where I've been residing for the past 8 and half years (and before that, back in the 70s, I lived in Greece-under the junta and beyond, for a decade) I see documentaries on World War Two, weekly. It is still much in the conscience of people, and I do understand why that should be on many levels...But during these documentaries, the way they are written, it often goes like this; "Hitler killed..." "Stalin tortured...". And today, it's said by the media and in general "Saddam massacred...". All spoken as though these men actually got their own hands bloodied. And they didn't. They don't. The men at the top rarely do. They give the orders to others-ranks upon ranks of men who are willing to believe and actively perpetrate the slaughters.

    This was, and is, what I'm trying to get at. The reason, not from a political standpoint, or a moral one, but from something more visceral-that creates the leader who creates the actions done by others. Unfortunately, I realize that you can't just dissect the one without examining the whole..the times, the social conditions, all the rest. But it is what I was thinking when I began the thread.

Jeez! I feel like I've hurt some feelings here, but maybe I just pushed a lot of buttons, and maybe it's not a bad thing that it happened. I've learned some things I didn't know, which is always a good thing for me to do, and I've heard from a lot of interesting sources. I really do apologize yet again, if you thought I was blaming, or calling liars, or attacking any of you. It's all about something on a much bigger scale for me...the fate of our species, and I'm still interested in knowing your feelings about that, as well as what I hope I clarified a little more on what I was asking initially....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 10:26 PM

And getting back to your original question, Ellen. Let's take a look at Joe Stalin. I think he was one man who made a huge difference...in that his extreme paranoia and ruthlessness resulted in the Communist Russian system descending into a monstrously destructive cycle of terror in the late 30's which led to internal purges which wiped out whole sectors of agrarian society and gutted the general staff of the armed forces. It was then interrupted by the attack of Nazi Germany, which eventually had the effect of uniting the Russian population against the external enemy, something Stalin would have been highly unlikely to achieve without such a huge external threat.

What I am saying here is that one man, Josef Stalin, succeeded in brutalizing the Russian system in an extraordinary way, and that was most unfortunate. It was a legacy that helped eventually destroy that system. Things could have been much better in Russia without Stalin.

Mao Tse Tung was also one man who made a very big difference, but that's a whole other discussion.

Martin Luther King was one man who made a very big difference, this time in the positive sense. As is often the case, he paid for it with his life.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:52 PM

Hi Ellen,

I take exception to the thought that we "get off on war." While we do talk about the war experience, and our own military experiences, I think there is a very clear reason for it.

We all know that boys and girls, of my vintage, were raised differently. Boys were culturally trained with toy soldiers and guns, while girls tended toward dolls and makeup. I know that's a big generalization, but it makes my point. When I went into the Army at 18, the cadre new what they were getting, a raw recruit that was raised as a boy. The whole focus of that basic training was to make us into killers, soldiers. And they were very good at it. IN a couple of months, I was very capable of killing someone, and given the right circumstances, I would and I could.

What I saw in the Military made a profound impression on me. All told, between two periods of active duty as well as active reserve duty, I was very involved in the American Army for 8 years. In that time I encountered the whole gambit of military men and women. I saw everything from the most ridgid, hard assed bastards that were always ready to fight (kill), to the most gentle souls you'd could ever hope to find. The gentler side were usually doctors. As a side note, as I was in the medical corps, we were often a walking contradiction of two opposite forces: killing vs saving lives.

Because of those eight years of exposure to military life, at a time in my life when I was still forming my opinions on many things, it is NOT surprising that I often use those experiences as a frame of reference for me.

Do I "get off on war", absolutly NOT. Do I think war is an acceptable choice. Again, absolutly NOT. But, and here's the rub, like it or not, we ARE at war, thanks to President bush.

To go back to your original question: "Would the thoughts carried into action by one man be enough to change everything," I would answer, hopefully yes. You mention Mahatma Gandi. We all know how his actions changed the course of events. And there are many examples, of course. I cannot help but wonder where we would be today if we had had another person in the Presidency who chose NOT to start this war.

In closing, my military experiences had a huge impact on what I am today. Does that make me a war monger, or a violant man, no.

CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:40 AM

Ellen, do not, EVER, accuse me of such again. Not until you have been in the Infantry, have spoken with the grunts, have lived with them.

Have you held in your arms another human being, closer to you than a brother, his black skin and your white stained with his red blood and pink brains while his life left him? There's nothing "macho" or "testosterone" about it.

My father was in the Pacific; the first letter he wrote to my mother after the bombing of Hiroshima was to the effect that he could now come home to see his wife and infant son -- and he walked in on December 23, 1945, unannounced and to great joy.

If you REALLY want to see the results of war, visit The Wall.

The sole reason to fight anyone is for self defense.

Until you've been there, until you REALLY understand, don't castigate those who have been there.

Real warriors, male or female, don't talk about the killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 02:19 PM

Let's see, Ellenpoly:

In your first post you mentioned Genghis Kahn, (sp.?), Napolean, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden - warriors or terrorists each and every one. In a subsequent post it was you who introduced the discussion of the use of the atomic bomb. I, along with a couple of others, had some thoughts on the subject which led to a enlightening discussion, at least from my point of view. We may have veered off of the thought of your original post, which I tried to clarify with a later set of questions. You either did not see that post or chose to ignore it.

Now you blame me and the others of GETTING OFF ON WAR (your emphasis.)In your self-congratulatory tirade against all who look back on history with an enquiring eye you seem to overlook one critical fact: if we do not examine and reexamine and examine again the mistakes of our past we have no hope of avoiding them in the future! Forgive me if I am wrong, but I did not read one line of the entire discussion that indicated the author wanted to rip is opponent's head off or glory in his/her mangled body. We disagreed about some points of historical interpretation, and had a reasoned discussion about it.

It was you, was it not, that protested the use of emotion over intellect? And then, in the midst of an intellectual debate, it was you who came in kicking and screaming and throwing over all the tables and telling us we are a bunch of immature warmongers who are destined to be kicked of this wonderful, astounding planet.

Well, Ellenpoly, it may come as a shock, but there are honest, good people who have honest, frank disagreements. For instance, I cannot disagree with you more strongly when you assert that agression in self defence is wrong or is not appropriate. That is exactly why more than 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler and his henchmen. That is why Saddam Hussein got away with gassing thousands of Kurdish people along the norther border of Iraq. That is why hundreds, if not thousands, of black people were murdered in the United States just because they were black. Sometimes agression is the ONLY appropriate and justified and sane and legitimate response.

I apologise if my discussion with Little Hawk made you physically ill. The surprise attack at Pearl Harbor that started the war and the atomic bomb that ended it made a lot more people more than just a little physically ill. I, for one, would like not to have to see another war like it in my lifetime. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people would discuss why they happen and what could be done to keep those things from happening again, maybe we could prevent another one from happening.

I would still like for you to clarify your earlier posts with specific examples. That way maybe we could respond to the intent of your first post, or engage with your line of reasoning. Apparently we have not done a very good job. I await a more reasoned and intellectual response.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:14 PM

Ellen:

First, I don't know who you are aiming your "You guys" remark at -- is this the testosterone trip? A lot of people have a lot of intense emotional responses to war ranging from deepest despond and insane grief to Patton's alleged exhileration. It is the most intense personal experience on earth, according to some reports, so why should it surprise you that it becomes the focus of a lot of talk?

You have tried to preempt me from disagreeing with you by telling me I would be lying if I claimed to be a pacifist. Fortunately my attitude toward this war and war in general is documented through my last 1000 posts or so.

I think it is insane. I think glorifying it is insane. I certainly think that launching one preemptively is insane. I thinkl the need for one --such as in 1939 -- is only vlid because of prior insanity. (And insanity is just about my worst insult).

Hope this clears things up a bit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:13 PM

Just because you don't like talking about war is no reason to decry those who do, Ellen. And you may misunderstand their motivations in doing so. Becoming very familiar with anything can, in itself, stir up strong interest in that subject.

Example: babies. I don't have much experience with them at this point, and I'm frankly rather uninterested in them most of the time. That doesn't mean that I think it's awful for people to go on and on talking about babies...although I wouldn't be too inclined to join in the conversation. Same goes for, let's see, mortgages and insurance policies and the stock market. Little experience, little interest.

Now war: Suppose that one had lived a number of lives in which one fought in wars...died in some...and was profoundly affected by the experience. That might produce a continuing interest in military history and strategy. Suppose that one's father had fought in a war, and this made a powerful impression on the mind of a young boy. That might produce an interest. Then too, one grows up in a culture filled with movies, books, comics, and so on about not only war, but every kind of adventure, such as: Tarzan stories, space stories, cowboy stories, samurai stories, Zorro, Davy Crockett, and so on and so on. Now a kid knows perfectly well that they're just stories...fantasies from his point of view. He plays "guns" knowing it's a fantasy. I certainly did.

I have NEVER in my adult life had any desire to be in a war, fire a gun at another human being, or engage in any such destructive activities whatsoever, because I know the difference between fantasy and reality.

So learn a little toleration, Ellen. If you want people to give up everything they "get off on" that might possibly bother someone else, you will have to eliminate virtually all forms of entertainment and literature in the world...and you won't improve things one bit by doing so.

Just accept the fact that some people are different from you, that's all. It doesn't meant they're sick or bad people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: JennyO
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:33 AM

but mediocrity and small mindedness can have their own power, if enough voters identify. and if someone petty and inhuman enough reaches power, they too can bring in horrific human rights violations, and by their blandness and medocicrity paint it in normal, safe tones so people don't really know whats going on.

How did I just KNOW you were talking about little Johnnie even before I read your last paragraph, freda?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:59 AM

Since the end of the Second World War, the following disputes have been "settled" by negotiation:

Arab/Israel conflicts that arose from the creation of the State of Israel (1948; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982).

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

Iran/Iraq War (1980 - 1988)

India/Pakistan in relation to Kashmir (1947; 1965; 1971)

Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait (1990 - 1991)

All the above have failed to create lasting settlements. The Allied leaders during the Second World War were absolutely adamant that victory could only be achieved by the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers - they were right.

Little Hawk's contention that a blockade would have worked is no doubt true - given time. Those who had fought through the Pacific campaigns, and in south-east Asia, knew that they did not have that time. The Americans had been warned by Churchill about Stalinist Russia at Tehran and Yalta, finally realised who they were dealing with at Potsdam. There was no way in creation that they were going to allow the USSR any say in the shape and form of a post-war Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM

its the old issue of the Nuremburg excuse - I did it because it was my job and I had to.

where do we draw the line? its only people objecting, refusing, speaking out, absconding, that even creates an alternative view. when nobody questions and everyone on the inside implements....

yes, soldiers fighting in wars have to protect their country. its like self defence as a motive in crime.

but so many wars or human rights violations happen not for reasons of self defence. As the recent Iraq intelligence issue is showing, when intelligence officers provide reports that don't fit in with a ruling governments intentions, they can be "sexed up". Research and reports are manipulated to motivate & justify things which are actually happening for other reasons.

usually most people are lucky to be at a distance from such power plays. where its difficult is for the person who is close to the action. observing suffering, people covering things up, lies. What does that person do?

its easy to say "speak out". usually a person has to give up a lot to do that, and then face becoming a political lamb to the slaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 06:52 AM

Ellen ... When I was a kid, and I was once, and all of my friends got toy cars and trucks, I always got jeeps and tanks. You don't suppose that was a sign of things to come, do you! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 06:42 AM

Freda, I really appreciated your input. It was, again, more to the point of where I was trying to go with this thread.

Deckman, you know I love you, but you wrote the following;

"Your use of the term "murderers" bothers me. In a war situation, under accepted rules of war, common soldiers who were following orders could/should not be branded as murderers".

Ya see, herein lies the rub. Thinking that wars and their rules are acceptable, and thinking that the "common soldier" is absolved from their actions of killing and maiming other human beings, whether they cry about it afterwards or not...is all part and parcel of much of what I've read here.

You guys GET OFF on WAR! Whether it's in the reading history of it, or re-arguing the battle strategies, or just proclaiming why certain leaders did or did not achieve what they set out to do...The underlying accord is that this is acceptable human behavior! Aggression against each other is not, or should not be, considered appropriate. Whether it's in defense or offense, and whether it's justified in your reasoning or not. This is the crux of the matter, guys.

Those of you who think you are pacifists are kidding yourselves.

Men need to bond over their war stories, or their sports competition, or their politics, or religions...it's an "Us against Them" kinda world. Is this part of our genetic make-up? Does the fact that we have a bigger brain in proportion to our bodies actually count for nothing when it still seems we as a species are not able to stop indiscriminately procreating, and then perpetrating violence against others of our species, (and for that matter, being responsible for the elimination of half the other species on earth in the past century alone)??
Where does it stop? Are we simply a dangerous mutant species run amok? Reading most of this thread made me feel physically ill. The calm debates regurgitating the Civil War, or Vietnam, Korean, or the World Wars etc, ad nauseum...have we learned anything? Or is it just mouth flapping rhetoric..."See how smart I am? See how much I know?" Oh PULEESE!! These discussions will not save our world, nor will they stop anyone from raping or torturing or pretending that this species is capable of living in a civilized society.
I think, no-I hope-we are doomed. I think we deserve to be given our walking papers off this wonderful gorgeous, astounding planet. We don't deserve it....
Ok, guys, go back to talking about war....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:20 AM

Posilutely, Bob.

Posilutely.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:12 AM

Amos ... Again, you give me things to think about. "The slaughter ... is too overwhelming to be looked at a second time." I agree with you, that that is all the more reason that it must be examined.

When I was a teenager, my Father (bless his wonderful soul) hired many returning returning WW2 veterans. As the "bosses son", learning my craft under his guidance, I worked alongside many of these men. I was cautioned never to ask one particuliar carpenter, who's name I am ashamed to admit that I don't remember even though I still see his face, about his war experiences. This particuliar man took an interest in me and we became friends. One day, I made the mistake of asking him about what he saw as a soldier in the "Battle of the Bulge." He sat me down on a saw horse and started to tell me. In a very short time, he became so upset that he was crying and ended up sitting on the floor of the house we were building. When my Father returned to the job site and saw what was happening, he rushed over and helped him into his truck. He drove the poor man home and came back to the jobsite. He made me drive the carpenters truck to his house, even though I was only 14. That night, Dad and I sat up quite late talking about what war can do to good people.

I fear that now, in Iraq, we are just creating another generation of soldiers experiencing a situation that will be hidden, again, in future generations.

Am I making any sense here? Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:38 PM

When we understand that duality,. Little Hawk, new worlds will open, I am fairly sure; to on e who has not walked the road you would thing the most burning need he would have had would be to tell what he had seen in their eyes, if he was that close, or heard as they died.

But perhaps slaughter, justified in court or no, is entirely too overwhelming to be looked at a second time.

All the more reason it should be, of course, to save it from the perpetuation that comes from an unwillingness to examine and understand.

But the devil is always i the details, in every sense of the phrase.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:28 PM

Whether it's legal murder or not, it still adds up to wantonly slaughtering other human beings, because of some rather remote idea that has taken control of you and them. My father killed a fair number of Germans in WWII (I know this by implication), but he never spoke directly about any of those incidents. He preferred to talk about the narrow escapes, the bizarre adventures, the other guys he knew in his unit, the funny incidents...anything except the actual killing. That says a good deal in itself. He obviously did not want to remember it or bring it to mind.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:27 PM

Amos ... First of all, I am quite amazed. You seen to speak in the 'language' style of 1860 America. I suspect that is intentional, and well studied. My compliments.

Now as to a "blinding misperception", that is indeed where we are right now. And that is also excatly where we were in VietNam. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:10 PM

The passions which their ideas stirred up in them made them willing to slaughter pizen bluebellies and durty rebs left and right. I know there are conventions about this sort of thing, of course, and legally the use of murder is not supportable; but in terms of wiping out a human being's life because of a blinding misperception, I would say many of those soldiers qualified.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:01 PM

Amos ... Your use of the term "murderers" bothers me. In a war situation, under accepted rules of war, common soldiers who were following orders could/should not be branded as murderers. I fear that this discussion will spread to the Nuremburg trials. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:56 PM

Hmmmmmm? Something to think about. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:42 PM

I don't think you are far off, Deck...the most mysterioous thing about the Civil War is that a conflict of ideas was powerful enough to make murderers out of hundreds of thousands of right-thinking, contemplative people. The most mysterious think about the many sides of th Iraqi situation -- Shiite, Republican, Democrat, Ba'athista or what have you - is exactly the same thing -- the willingness to become slaughters on behalf of an idea. To paraphrase one old saw, an idea worth killing for is a beautiful thing right up to the point it is clearly understood...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:27 PM

Again, I know that this statement is NOT in keeping with the theme of this thread, but one of my strongest feelings, after completing so much reading of American Civil War history is this: ... there is so MUCH to feel so sad about, on both sides of the conflict.

I am a student of history. And the more I learn, the more I know. And the more I know, the more I try to apply to TODAY. So, bringing this back to today, I'm wondering if we can draw a parallel between the forces that shaped the conflict that resulted in the civil war, and what's happening today in Iraq. (I fear I'm going far astray from the thread). Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM

Back at ya Little Hawk.

Well said

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 03:50 PM

You'll enjoy it, Bob. It's a superb account of the war from the days immediately following Gettysburg right on to the bitter end, and it gives equal dignity to both sides, which is something I like to see. Grant makes a good impression on me too...an honest man taking on a herculean task with utmost determination and efficiency. Lee is probably the most unforgettable commander of all time...a man who was no admirer of slavery, but fought for his home ground with absolute faith in the rightness of his cause.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:44 AM

LH ... I just finished reading Grant's autobiography. I felt it told a lot about the charactor of the man when he held back his artillary from neddlessly slaughtering Lee's Army. I know this adds nothing to this thread, I just wanted to mention it. I think I'll get book "The Last Full Measure" that you mention. Thanks, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 10:04 PM

Well said, freightdawg. I think Midway for the Japanese was a lot like Gettysburg for the South in the Civil War. It didn't mean the fighting was over or even close to being over, but it meant they had lost the iniative...for good...and would be forced to fight on the defensive from then on. Fighting on the defensive is a big problem, because it allows the other side the freedom to hit you where and when they please...so you're always reacting to events forced upon you rather than setting the agenda. This didn't work very well for Robert E. Lee, although he won a few more defensive battles, and it worked even less well for the Japanese, though they also won some more naval battles here and there around Guadalcanal. In Eastern Europe Stalingrad served the same purpose as regards the Germans. They also won some battles after Stalingrad, but they never again gained the initiative. It had passed to the Allies, on all fronts.

The loss of the 4 big carriers at Midway was tremendously more important than the loss of any battleship. The only thing about the sinking of the Yamato in 1945 that stands out is this: it was the last offensive sortie by the Japanese Navy, and it was a suicide mission. The Yamato and her escorts were outnumbered about 30 or 40 to one in ships, had no air cover, and the Yamato had only enough fuel in her tanks to reach the enormous American invasion fleet off Okinawa...not enough to come back home afterward. Needless to say, they were not planning to come home. 2400 men on the Yamato knew they were going to almost certain death, and they did it with typical Japanese fatalism. It was a final gesture of honor, nothing more. The Army generals had been quite contemptuous of the Navy's helplessness following Leyte Gulf in '44, and the Navy decided to show that at least they were not afraid to die...thus saving some face. It's very sad that people would feel compelled to do such things...kind of like that hopeless charge of the cavalry of Gondor in the last LOTR movie.

"We who are about to die salute you."

In return for losing the 64,000 ton Yamato, a light cruiser, several destroyers, and several thousand men the Japanese AA gunners shot down a handful of American carrier airplanes. They had been swarmed over by several hundred of them in the hour and a half it took the Yamato to die.

I'm glad that Lee's ragged Army of Northern Virginia was not similarly massacred at Appommatox on the day of their final surrender. If Phil Sheridan had had his way, they would have been. Fortunately, General Grant stopped that from happening. Thank God! (Have been reading Jeff Shaara's book 'The Last Full Measure'. Great book. I have to say this...Sheridan was a very effectice commander, excellent at winning battles, and he was also a bloodthirsty, arrogant little bastard.)

- LH