Killing with best of intentions
Some one who considers whole world to be his family, thereby endeavours to help others in need can be considered as humanists.
However those who refuses to take cognizance of the fact that evil exists, who denies any distinction between moral and immoral, good and evil, who vehemently rejects the truth that sometimes it might be necessary to indulge in violence and destruction to save what is vital, and critical, those worthies are not friends of humanity. By their acts of falsification unintended or deliberate, they become worse enemies of mankind.
The moral of story is to be wary of do- gooders.
7 comments:
Examples?
What is violence?
Well, since you did not give examples, I came up with my own. :)
I am the Prime Minister of India and I think selling cigarettes is immoral, does it justify my closing down all tobacco companies in India?
And why is it that there is no alternative to violence? Why not use social boycott as a tool against those that commit evil?
kArtik, gaurav is saying that sometimes violence may be necessary, not that violence is the only method to fight evil. For instance, for an issue as vital as national security, social boycott etc. don't help; one will have to kill terrorists in encounters, torture them to get information from them etc.
I think you are wrong. Violence against terrorists is justified because they did something illegal and not immoral.
Cigarette manufacturers might be as immoral as terrorists, but it is the illagality of terrorism that makes the terrorists liable to punishment.
Again, it must be clearly stated as to what offence deserves what punishment. Police torture is illegal, and rightly so, because it gives the police powers liable to misuse. And this misuse will lead to decrease in the public confidence in the state.
The whole point is that violence is justified only against those who themselves are guilty of violationg others' rights. But what you propose will allow for the state to resort to violence against the innocent also, and this is obviously immoral and illegal. The result is an endless cycle.
It is like this. Some policeman uses your flawed logic to torture an innocent guy, as a part of some anti-terrorist measure. This guy says that the state has resorted to unjustified violence on him, hence he is justified in doing the same. But instead of targeting the state alone, he kills some civilians also. He thus gets branded as a terrorist, and in trying to eliminate him, the state violates the right of a few more innocent individuals. Where does this end?
To prevent such a thing from the happening, the state has to be careful to not adopt any measures that might seem expedient, but will result in more state violence on civilians (the innocent ones). This may test the patience of the law-enforcers, but there is no better alternative.
Karthik,
But where am I talking about state or torture or for that matter even unbridled violence.
What I made was just a general statement on nature of civilization.
Frog,
I guess you will again have to wait for examples. Apologies for delay.
Regards
About torture etc. kArtik was replying to me, I guess.
hi frog,
yes that was in reply to your comment.
Post a Comment