Hi Dion,
Very interesting comparison of warriors and pacifists. But it is even weirder than
that. Opposites and protagonists symbiotically serve each others purpose. Indeed
they are the same cause they are both fighting against something. (Unfortunately
warriors tend to have a higher body count and cause more collateral damage which is
one up to pacifists).
I think there is a moral and it is that both pacifists and warriors can take their
morals to extreme points which are silly to put it mildly. Jane Fonda's ex husband
was reported as being very satisfied with the litter of tear gas canisters in
Seattle's streets. Same as extreme left and right wing regimes fold over into each
other.
In fact any ethic or moral taken to an extreme point is silly. To my mind Western
philosophy is a waste of time after Aristotle. He was sensible. He saw morals as
a matter of mature compromise.
After Aristotle Western Philosophy was basically a search for ethical truths which
would be premises from which one could reason logically. The whole thrust is
fundamentally fucked in the head.
If there is any ethic, any moral, any right that should be cast in stone it is the
right that you and I have to life. But could you put it in a Bill of rights?
Could you put it in our constitution?
No! The taking of life is not an absolute no. If I try to kill you, then it is
sensible to terminate my life to protect yours. If a woman is raped should she
have to constitutionally bear her rapists baby? No it is unreasonable.
Equally the view there are no moral truths is fucked in the head. Life is almost
sancrosanct. It is almost cast in stone. Peter Singer was very unfairly attacked
for his Utiltarian views but the extreme points his critcics used were the extreme
pioints of his philosophy which is basically fucked in the head because it ASSUMES
some moral givens. No mature compromise at all.
If you can't put the right to life in a constitution, what right can you put there?
None. Other than the rights necessary for a functioning democracy and a trust, not
in God, but in the People to make the right mature moral compromise to suit their
times.
Ric
Dion Giles wrote:
> These comments are prompted by Philip Madsen's posting (below) but take
> issue with views which Philip didn't express but to which they are relevant
> and which are frequently heard. They suggest a context in which to look at
> the comparison Philip invited beween Nazi invaders/occupiers who shot
> civilians to terrorise the population on order to discourage resistance to
> invasion/occupation and the NATO raids against Serbia.
>
> Pacifists and warriors share some peculiar insensitivities.
>
> Both proclaim that all use of armed force is morally the same. They are
> unconcerned whether the purpose is to impose rule on an unwilling population
> of a territory, colony, nation of collection of nations or to resist it.
> They are unconcerned about whether it is directed only at combatants (like
> sinking the troopship General Belgrano), or at combatants and their
> infrastructure with not always successful care to avoid non-combatants, or
> at everything that moves (as in the Russians' campaign in Chechnya) or
> specifically and exclusively at non-combatants (part of IRA strategies and
> strategies of some other anti-democratic organisations and governments like
> that of Russia). They are unconcerned about whether the combatants are
> liberators or overlords. Pacifists undiscriminatingly resent the combatants,
> warriors undiscriminatingly honour them.
>
> There is an in between subset of pacifists/warriors which holds that it
> matters whether resort to arms is by governments or by non-government
> organisations. The pacifist wing of these would for example hold only state
> crimes come in the ambit of offences against human rights which should be
> punished, and the warrior wing holds that only state crimes deserve impunity.
>
> All these advocacies are a retreat from pursuit of justice. Justice and the
> right of peoples to self-determination are low on the totem pole both for
> pacifists (less important than peace) and warriors (less important than
> winning).
>
> Both pacifists and warriors give equal respect to the firefighter and the
> arsonist. To pacifists and warriors alike the aggressive hordes who poured
> over Europe and Asia to annex territory in the 1940s and suppress local
> populations should be accorded the same respect as those who gave all in
> order to resist and defeat them.
>
> I believe both pacifists and warriors have a dangerously cockeyed view of
> the world, and that if either had prevailed in the last two millennia and
> especially the 1940s then there would be no such thing as democracy or human
> rights, only obsequiousness and bullying. If our species still existed at all.
>
> What does all this have to do with the Javanese empire and East Timor? It
> allows a context in which to look at the events which is based on justice
> and morality and the rights of people to run their own territory if they
> wish to do so, not on geopolitics and on ideology whether pro-armed-action
> or anti-armed-action. It casts aside the "c'est la guerre" shrug. In this
> context, anyone who takes part in an armed invasion to annex a territory or
> to keep it annexed, anyone who in the service of such a goal (or any goal
> for that matter) would deliberately hammer nails into the head of a young
> prisoner, anyone who would protectively close ranks with such mongrels right
> up to and including Abdurrahman Wahid, is human garbage at best and not to
> be compared in any way with Australian soldiers who are in Timor to prevent
> crime, not commit it. Our foreign policy must be based on decency, not on
> "constructive engagement" in service of pacifist ideology or the greed of
> the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
>
> Dion Giles
> Fremantle, Western Australia
> ------------------
> Previous correspondence:
>
> >From Philip Madsen:
>
> Don, You mentioned the Nazis. Remember how in France they lined up 10
> townspeople women
> and kids, and shot them every day till the resistance stopped.
> Was that worse than bonbing civilians and their homes till the resistance of
> Serbia
> capitulated? Or any other miliatary mission by the worlds "leaders" in this
> modern
> world. Kill the women and kids to get at the men. Called "modern morality" I
> really
> wonder if our miliatary would be any different in this modern environment?
> philip Madsen.
>
> Dion Giles wrote:
>
> > Indo President Wahid has told the people of Aceh that anyone raising the
> > national flag of Aceh will be shot.
> >
> > The ending of boycotts and restoration of normal relations with the pariah
> > state of Indonesia has obviously come far too soon.
> >
> > Here is the ABC item reporting Wahid's threats (it wrongly called resistance
> > fighters "separatists" -- a colonial overlord's propaganda term which even
> > Nazi Germany didn't use in describing the resistance ion occupied territory).
> >
> > -------
> > Aceh separatists mark anniversary of struggle
> >
> > Separatists in Indonesia's troubled province of Aceh are to mark the
> > anniversary of their arms struggle today, vowing to push Jakarta to hold a
> > referendum on independence as in East Timor.
> >
> > Leaders of the Free Aceh Movement have called on people not to raise their
> > separatist flag for fear of provoking a miilitary crackdown.
> >
> > The Indonesian armed forces has warned anyone raising the flag could be shot.
> >
> > Indonesia's President, Abdurrahman Wahid, says that repressive measures will
> > be taken if the country's prize terroritorial integrity is challenged by
> > Aceh separatists.
> >
> > The guerilla commanders of the Free Aceh Movement will however go ahead with
> > flag raising ceremonies in their mountain strongholds.
> >
> > They claim 90 per cent support from the people of Aceh after an often brutal
> > decade long campaign against them by the Indonesian military.
> >
> > They are demanding a referendum on independence, similar to the one held in
> > East Timor. The Indonesian Government may agree to a ballot, but only
> > offering greater territorial autonomy.
> > ------------------
> >
> > Dion Giles
> > Fremantle, Western Australia
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
> discussion.
> >
> > To unsubscribe click here
> Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
> > To subscribe click here
> Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
> >
> > For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
> > For archives
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
