Dr. Malone has studied ethics and is probably aware that, as painful as it is to accept, an "eye for an eye" mentality among men just results in a lot of blind people. Retaliatory violence is not the way to solve the problem of violence. Humanity, though, may never learn this lesson.
Dr. Malone has studied ethics and is probably aware that, as painful as it is to accept, an "eye for an eye" mentality among men just results in a lot of blind people. Retaliatory violence is not the way to solve the problem of violence. Humanity, though, may never learn this lesson.
Easy to say about the ethics of war, but let's not forget how Israel was attacked first in an unusually cruel manner. Sometimes, you need a lot of blind people (eye for eye). The old saying is it takes two to fight...I disagree....it takes one to fight, and the other to defend...you're forced into a fight. IMO, if forced into a fight, there are no limits. No greater friend in peacetime, and no greater enemy in wartime.
The sentiments you express are very common and widely supported. And this is one reason it is so difficult to end human-on-human violence. Maybe it's not worth ending. Some people find fighting kind of fun.
But the finding I have been taught is that it actually takes THREE to start a serious cycle of violence. There are the two actually doing the fighting, then there is a covert (secret) third party egging both of them on. The third party sees both sides as dangerous and so comes up with the "solution" of getting them to fight each other. I am convinced that this is a more complete understanding of why people resort to killing each other.
When it comes to something like Zionism versus Palestine, the roots of this go back who knows how far into the past. Each side uses the last attack to justify their next act of violence. And each act of violence weakens both sides. If we see this as the desired result of human-on-human violence, then we can see how the criminal mind might be attracted to it. If you can get Hamas to act as crazy as they have, though, you have created a situation that could last very close to forever. Of course most women (but not all), children and old people want to have nothing to do with all the bloodshed and can see in their own lives how destructive it is. But in the end the men see fighting as a part of their job, and seem willing (sometimes even eager) to do it regardless of the human cost.
Every time people who think they know more than anyone else are allowed to remap the globe the world has to live with the consequences. Israel another example. Whether you agree or not with its creation, it is there and now its existence has to be tolerated, either diplomatically or militarily. Or accept another holocaust.
тАЬAn eye for an eyeтАЭ is not a retaliatory statement, but rather the standard that is used in biblical Law, and in our laws, which keeps the punishment equal to the law which was brokenтАФlife for life, not life for stealing my sheep.
Yes, but the whole concept of punishment or retribution "in kind" or otherwise has not served us well. It has been discovered that many people who commit crimes want to be caught and punished, as they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and so expect someone else to prevent them from doing bad things. However, when such people are "freed," they just go back to doing the same bad things. They have no self-control.
Of course this goes against our natural instinct to strike back if struck. To restrain oneself from doing so is considered saintly, and is not expected of "normal" people. But of course striking back only continues the violence.
Dr. Malone has studied ethics and is probably aware that, as painful as it is to accept, an "eye for an eye" mentality among men just results in a lot of blind people. Retaliatory violence is not the way to solve the problem of violence. Humanity, though, may never learn this lesson.
Easy to say about the ethics of war, but let's not forget how Israel was attacked first in an unusually cruel manner. Sometimes, you need a lot of blind people (eye for eye). The old saying is it takes two to fight...I disagree....it takes one to fight, and the other to defend...you're forced into a fight. IMO, if forced into a fight, there are no limits. No greater friend in peacetime, and no greater enemy in wartime.
The sentiments you express are very common and widely supported. And this is one reason it is so difficult to end human-on-human violence. Maybe it's not worth ending. Some people find fighting kind of fun.
But the finding I have been taught is that it actually takes THREE to start a serious cycle of violence. There are the two actually doing the fighting, then there is a covert (secret) third party egging both of them on. The third party sees both sides as dangerous and so comes up with the "solution" of getting them to fight each other. I am convinced that this is a more complete understanding of why people resort to killing each other.
When it comes to something like Zionism versus Palestine, the roots of this go back who knows how far into the past. Each side uses the last attack to justify their next act of violence. And each act of violence weakens both sides. If we see this as the desired result of human-on-human violence, then we can see how the criminal mind might be attracted to it. If you can get Hamas to act as crazy as they have, though, you have created a situation that could last very close to forever. Of course most women (but not all), children and old people want to have nothing to do with all the bloodshed and can see in their own lives how destructive it is. But in the end the men see fighting as a part of their job, and seem willing (sometimes even eager) to do it regardless of the human cost.
Every time people who think they know more than anyone else are allowed to remap the globe the world has to live with the consequences. Israel another example. Whether you agree or not with its creation, it is there and now its existence has to be tolerated, either diplomatically or militarily. Or accept another holocaust.
Fifth columnists, Provocateurs, Quislings, Anarchists, Sorosites you mean?
To what do you refer?
Israel was not attacked first.
Aww! How polite! (/sarc)
тАЬAn eye for an eyeтАЭ is not a retaliatory statement, but rather the standard that is used in biblical Law, and in our laws, which keeps the punishment equal to the law which was brokenтАФlife for life, not life for stealing my sheep.
Yes, but the whole concept of punishment or retribution "in kind" or otherwise has not served us well. It has been discovered that many people who commit crimes want to be caught and punished, as they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and so expect someone else to prevent them from doing bad things. However, when such people are "freed," they just go back to doing the same bad things. They have no self-control.
Of course this goes against our natural instinct to strike back if struck. To restrain oneself from doing so is considered saintly, and is not expected of "normal" people. But of course striking back only continues the violence.