A counter-quote

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Ezri, I can't stand you or your petty viewpoints, but I would gladly give my life to ensure that you continue to have the freedom to share them.

Davy, while I can't talk for Ezri I think the quote is at least flawed. As it is now

unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself

could be taken as an excuse to force a political POV on other people by someone who thinks he is a "better man". Now consider the time Mill lived in and the colonial politics of that time and I am sure you can see the questionable part of the quote.


The big problem I see here is that we are mixing up comments to the JSM quote that are comming from an ethical and/or political POV and those that are originating from a rather personal POV.
While I agree with some posters that "forcing your own way of life on other people because you are a better man" is anything but desireable I have to agree just as much that there are some things worth fighting for.

And Amen brother Davy, I don't even want to imagine what my country would be like if nobody had stood up to Hitler.

[Sarge]

I fully agree with Mill's quote.

However...

I certainly don't think it applies to all pacifists. If somebody is so convinced of the rightness of his philosophy that he is willing to die for it, I respect his choice.

What rubs me wrong is when somebody is so convinced of the rightness of pacifism that he will stand by and let other innocents die rather than get his own hands dirty.

MHO.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lancer
Joe, sure I am talking about hypothetical situations, but what you said before made it sound like you wouldn't even acknowledge the possibility of situations that would justify giving your life for somebody else.

Yup. I don't think that dying helps anybody. Ever.
Risking your life? Sure. I'd risk my life for a lot of things. Dying? No.

Let's re-state this a little bit differently: Would I be willing to take a bullet for my mother or father?
I think I would, even if I hope I will never come to the (highly unlikely, I admit) situation to find out if this is true or not.

Again, why would taking a bullet for your parents help your parents? They'd lose a son. Is that so much better than losing the rest of your life and the chance to raise your own family?
In the end it's your choice, but my view of the matter should be obvious.

And how do you know that because of your death, your family has been "saved"? It's not as if you'd be still around to make sure, is it?

If I had to choose between the life of someone dear to me and someone I don't know my choice would be for the one I know and love. If that doesn't agree with your POV that's fine by me, but it's how I feel.

I think there shouldn't be much of a difference between people you know and people you don't. YMMV.

While I - like you I presume - am opposed to war, the death-penalty or any other taking of a human life I can at least imagine a few (very unlikely) situations when my convictions would be overruled by my gut feelings.

That's a good thing... how?

Ask yourself this: If you had to choose between the life of someone you love and someone unknown to you, which life would you choose?

Both. I'd cheat.

If you are opposed to taking a human life, couldn't there exist a situation in which by inaction you would make a choice between human lifes?

If I'm opposed to taking a life, how does you putting me in a situation where the only action open to me is essentially taking a life prove anything? I still wouldn't do it, but I don't have a choice in your scenario, do I?

If you make categorical statements like you did they should (IMNSHO at least) cover all possible situations, which (again IMNSHO) you fail to do.

I disagree. I think my statement does cover all possible situations, in which I actually can choose between taking a life and not taking a life.

[qerlin]

This is why I used to love this board...I don't agree with Dizzy, or Erzi...but I like hearing their opinions. Because one day, someone's argument might present me with a problem, morally or otherwise, that causes me to change my mind. That's how I went from a "one-world left-leaning" type to a libertarian. The argument and facts supporting it convinced me I was wrong.

I for one lament the passing of the political threads.

[Cybrludite]

Ok, Joe, let's try the classic time-travel quandry. A time-travel device puts you in Hitler's Veinna apartment, back when he was trying to get into art school. The future Fuhrer is in bed asleep & there's a loaded pistol on the bedside table. No one else is around to interfere. BY killing this one person, you will certainly save 6 million Jews & 5 million Gypsies, Homosexuals, and political opponents of the Nazis. You may even save the tens of millions of people who died in the North African & European theaters of WWII by preventing it from happening. Do you or don't you murder Hitler in his sleep? Yes, it's a purely hypothetical situation, but it questions it makes you ask yourself still apply to real-world problems in places like Kosovo & Rwanda.

[C5]

The trouble of this sort of dilemma is that is supposes a certainty about the future, something we usually lack. But I like it anyway... and never found an easy answer to it.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by C5
The trouble of this sort of dilemma is that is supposes a certainty about the future, something we usually lack. But I like it anyway... and never found an easy answer to it.

I dunno. As far as Sub-Saharan Africa goes, something like Rhwanda happening is usually a pretty safe bet. It doesn't take a tarot deck to see that Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is heading in that direction, for example. Or there's the real possibility that Nigeria will go the way of the Sudan if the radicals in the Muslim north aren't thinned out. (Whabbism has been making notable inroads, displacing the Sufism that has been the traditional form of Islam in the area. )

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Yup. I don't think that dying helps anybody. Ever.
Risking your life? Sure. I'd risk my life for a lot of things. Dying? No.

"Risking your life" explicitly implies the possibility of dying, or how else could there be a risk to your life but by the chance of you dying?
IMHO you are splitting hairs here Joe. Saying that you are willing to risk your life yet unwilling to die for something dear to you contradicts itself, as one possibility can only exist because of the other.

I think there shouldn't be much of a difference between people you know and people you don't. YMMV.

I never said there was any difference in the sense that one life would be worth more than the other. I was merely pointing out that in some hypothetical situations I would take a decision based not on ethical or moral principles, but based on my instincts and feelings at that moment. That may not be such a good idea in your book, but it is still how I feel and what I consider most likely.

That's a good thing... how?

I never said it was a good thing. If you are under the impression I did you are quite wrong.

Both. I'd cheat.

If you have been able to cheat your way through all critical situations in your life so far you can consider yourself a lucky man. For your sake I truely hope lady luck will continue to smile on you like this.


Let's look at all this from a slightly different angle:
If I should ever find myself in a situation where my choice would influence who gets to live and who dies I would make that choice.
You are of course free not to make that decision, but if the situation was one that would clearly lead to one person dying and another living, than indecision would amount to handing over the fate of those (hypothetical) two people to fate or chance alone. Not making a choice in this case would IMNSHO be just as well and good as tossing a coin or throwing some dice to decide who should live and who should die.
And remember that even he who decides not to choose has made a choice by that allready. In some possible (albeit highly unlikely) scenarios inaction would still result in the death of one person, so why shouldn't I make a choice if the consequences are the same if I made a choice or not, i.e. 1 dead, 1 alive?

[Ezri's Toy]

To Sea Tyger, Snake_Plissken, and others who vehemently dislike what I have to say:

There's a feature on this board called an 'Ignore List.' By use of this feature,
you can ignore any and all posts made by particular board members you designate, including me. They simply will not be displayed when you log in. You can access the Ignore List by hitting the 'User CP' button at the top of this page.

If you use this feature, you won't have to worry about me challenging your worldviews ever again. Of course, as we all know, worldviews that can't withstand being challenged aren't worldviews that will endure.

[C5]

Interesting debate so far (minus a few posts). I'd never have believed a subject so close to politics would have remained civil that long. Maybe we could talk about lifting part of the ban.

Now let me add my 0.02 € :

As a general fact, the main problem with quotes is that 1) taken out of context, they can say anything and 2) you'll probably find a quote to support any existing viewpoint. So battling with the number of quotes supporting a particular POV is kind of futile.

As for the subject at hand, I think our problem is that we find easier to think in black and white instead of shades of grey. Indeed, you'll find people who are ready to die instead of harming someone else, people who will harm others only in the direst emergencies, people who are ready to betray instead of having to fight, people who are ready to die for people they love, people who are ready to die for people they don't know and who maybe hate them, people who are ready to fight because they just like that, people who want to fight because they believe it's the best solution, etc....
Yet we find easier to classify that as two categories : People who think right (=like us) and spineless cowards/ruthless warmongers (depending on which category you belong). Reality is just more complex than these two quotes would like us to believe.
And, as has been said on another thread, there is no "über morale" deciding who or what is right, wrong, good or bad.

Mmmh... bad case of ramblings, here. I'll stop here and go take my medication

[Sea Tyger]

Ezri --

Don't patronize me; I put you (and others) on my ignore list months ago, although I occasionally do check out what you have to say (which is one reason I initially responded on this thread).

C5: right on, brutha.

And as I really have nothing else to say on the subject, I'll gracefully bow out of this thread.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by C5
People who think right (=like us) and spineless cowards/ruthless warmongers (depending on which category you belong).

Don't know about that; I know plenty of people who can see the variations b etween the extremes. I'm includng most of the people on this board in that (I'd say all, but I'd probably be wrong.)

One thing I've learned...if someone's opinion of something tweaks your tit, it probably hit to close to home. So people who flake at "warmonger", or "coward", "socialist" or "wacko [choose something]" -- the problem's not with the statement. It's with you; examine your beliefs if something's pissing you off -- you might change your opinion on the matter...or not. Too many people out there with THIN skins; I take insults all the time -- hell, I got 'em every day of my youth as a Scottish-accented, small, weak kid in Pennsylvania -- I don't dish 'em unless I know and I like the person. And opinion which you might think directed at you in an open forum highly likely wasn't...so where does the error lie?

Maybe we all need to drink more. And be a LOT less serious. After all, life is 100% fatal.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by qerlin
Maybe we all need to drink more. And be a LOT less serious.

I'll drink to that.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lancer

IMHO you are splitting hairs here Joe. Saying that you are willing to risk your life yet unwilling to die for something dear to you contradicts itself, as one possibility can only exist because of the other.

No, I'm not.
Laying down your life is a statement and an action in itself. It's shutting down your survival instinct and wasting your existence. Like the (I believe) buddhist monks who set themselves on fire.

Some people might think this is noble, I think it's dumb as ****.

I won't give my life for anyone or anything. I can improve nothing by dying.

I was merely pointing out that in some hypothetical situations I would take a decision based not on ethical or moral principles, but based on my instincts and feelings at that moment.

There shouldn't be a difference between those two.

I never said it was a good thing. If you are under the impression I did you are quite wrong.

Thanks for sharing your "faults" with us then.

If you have been able to cheat your way through all critical situations in your life so far you can consider yourself a lucky man.

Well, I learned my lesson from Kirk. If you can't win, rig the game.

I've yet to see why I should put myself in a hypothetical no-win situation. What exactly would be the point of that? Other than proving that a no-win situation means you can't "win" or come out clean.

Let's look at all this from a slightly different angle:
If I should ever find myself in a situation where my choice would influence who gets to live and who dies I would make that choice.

So would I. If you think I wouldn't make a critical choice, if I had to, you are quite wrong.

I just wouldn't let myself be restricted to two choices I both want to avoid.

Not making a choice in this case would IMNSHO be just as well and good as tossing a coin or throwing some dice to decide who should live and who should die.

How is your choice in that matter any better than the flip of a coin?
It's essentially random and the consequences are preordained.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lancer
I'll drink to that.

To alcohol! The solution and the source of all our problems!

- Sage Homer S.