Forum - View topicNEWS: Politically-charged Manga Suspended in Japan
Goto page Previous Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mlund
Posts: 60 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's fair enough. I accept as part of reality that there are circumstances where men are forced by other men and circumstance to choose between evils, and that it is best to choose the lesser of those evils.
While I understand the reasoning, I can't say that I accept it as truth. This is a disagreement of fundmental values.
Unfortunately, I disagree. I think it fails to make the point, though it succedes in raising questions. To take the counter-hostage example to a whole new level, consider Mutually Assured Destruction. We live in a world were practically everyone on the planet is held hostage against the deaths of one another. Global Thermonuclear Atrocities are averted by the hostage situation - the promise that if one is commited everyone will die. Bringing it back to anime and manga for a moment, this theme comes up even in Ah Megami-sama! manga - the pact between the Angels and Demons in which their "lives" are held hostage against one another.
You assume too much of your success in doing so, here, I'm afraid.
That's exactly the point! Don't avoid it. Reality is full of "sticky wickets" like that, with "no good moral answer. That's still the world we live in. Those are still the dillemas that there but for the grace of God go I.
Atrocities are on the low end of the moral scale, at least on mine. I can't say the same for everyone else on the planet. Some people believe that civilians ought to be the primary target of their violence and oppression whenever possible.
And yet we needed Stalin to stop Hitler, other monsters to stop the Soviets, and so on it goes - we get to the price of escaping the jackboot further down.
Do not even begin to attempt to escape culpability by blaming others for what you yourself did. I have stereotyped no one's culture. Such thinking is not the exclusive province of any particular nation, race, ethnicity, or religion.
My cultural ancestors are guilty of beating and murdering their daughters for literacy and deeming homosexuality as an atrocity - there are plenty of witch-hunts back in that closet, I'm sure. If I perceive the same mistakes and wrongs being committed in the modern era by whatever individuals and parties that is a tangental point entirely.
It begs the follow-up - what makes Geneva "right" and something else "wrong?" What about people who did not sign up for the Geneva convention? Is this mandate derived from the Tyranny of the Majority, Natural Law, Divine Right, or simple Force of Arms?
Obviously war and atrocities have a lot of attendant problems. But do we have a better solution? I'd like it to always be true, and to have always been true. I'd like to strive to keep the bar high, and never have to stoop to that level again. However, I recognize the reality that sometimes societies are unwilling to take the steps necessary to preserve a true and lasting peace in the world. Historically, humans have a knack for turning a blind eye to the rot and cancers in the world until the time to avoid great horrors has long past. Then other men are left to bear those burdens.
The problem is that when you are dead and the less moral are writing the history books, controlling the media, and expunging your existance from the pages of history, the likelihood of victory through moral superitory dims greatly. I agree that we have to win through moral superiority, but I consider that military might has a role to play there too. I'm thankful that the scale of conflict and military strength makes it possible to "pull punches" and keep the moral high ground without risking greater tragedy. I also recognize that sometimes the circumstances are not as fortunate.
So then we agree that the intended outcome of the action affects the moral status of the action? If it is purely about means and results, bombs kill and dead civilians are dead civilians. Once we agree that intended consequence color the morality of an action, we're left to argue the semantics involved in the equations.
That would certainly be ideal. Though we live in a less than ideal world (pretty hard to compensate victims monetarily when a corrupt totalitarian government will simply embessel the reparations), I put the highest valuation on working to prevent a circumstance of inevitable atrocity from happening again.
You see, this is where I disagree. I see situations where I believe the choices between the lesser of two evils carries down series of forks where you are eventually left with evils weak enough that "good" can overwhelm them, rather than be itself overwhelmed through mass-murder and oppression. The alternative of letting evil simply win and oppress the world and then wait for the system to rot itself out - that option does not appeal to me.
Of course it doesn't invalidate those standards. Hypocrisy does not invalidate a postulate or theory. However, I find it very difficult to cast stones at people for doing something that, deep down in my soul, I know that I might do if faced with the exact same capabilities and consequences. Instead I find it much easier to pass judgment on people who I believe have a "worse" set of moral values supporting their conduct than my own - people who make decisions that I would not make given identical capabilities and consequences.
No. I could very well judge it to be a lack of a particularly vital scruple that renders a man unable to sacrifice his own soul for the sake of others.
The concept of the "anti-hero" is no stranger to modern literature and pop-culture. These are the guard-dog monsters that are kept on a leash to protect the innocent for even worse monsters who have been unleashed on the world. - Marty Lund |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
![]() Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, I think that is correct. In fact, I suspect that, having reached that conclusion, we've also almost reached the end of the usefulness of this debate, since we have fairly clarified each our positions.
Well, this is an anime forum (although you'd never know it to look at this thread ![]()
Don't get your knickers in a twist over my saying this - but I think you're just refusing to admit that I scored a point off you with your own ball. ![]()
Hmm. It looks like you misunderstood me. I was saying that targeting civilians wasn't an example of low morals, but of no morals. Remember that point of fundamental disagreement between us? I see atrocities as being outside (below) the scale of immoral behaviour, whereas you see shades of bad beviour that gradually move down into atrocity. Or to put in other words: If military malfeasance were somehow represented in the form of a mechanical device, I would see the "Atrocity" switch as an ON/OFF button. You would see it as a knob that could be turned, giving graduated values of atrocity. Am I right?
Reminds me of the childrens' song about the old woman who swallowed a fly. Then she swallowed a spider, to get the fly. Etcetera.
I always get antsy when someone who obviously subscribes to the ideal of democracy starts talking about the "tyranny" of the majority. The central idea of democracy is that issues are fairly debated, then voted upon, and the majority opinion prevails. It's not a perfect system, but it looks like it's the best we've managed to come up with so far. Alternate, consensus-based forms of democracy have been tried, but they don't work all that well. The old Polish republic, or the current U.N., are illustrative examples. If you don't buy into the idea that a democratic system makes majority decisions, then your only alternatives are the consensual system, or minority rule. So, if you don't want democratic majority rule, and you don't think consensus works, then you're left with such sterling historical examples of minority rule as, say, Rhodesia. Or Rwanda. Or South Africa. The short answer to your question is that there is nothing that makes the Geneva Conventions infallible. Nor are they moral absolutes. Many of the features of the GCs are the result of specific historical processes that the creators of the GCs had had to deal with. But, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are our current best offering in the field of moral standards. Later ages of humanity may be aghast at the lack of fundamental moral rights that we took for granted in our age, much as we are shocked to read of slavery in past ages. But that will be because the status of human morality has advanced. And make no mistake, I believe that, overall, mankind is doing a better job of it now than a century ago.
Cheap potshot, with no argumentative content. If I want a repeated mockery of my own words, I'll buy a parrot. ![]() Hmm... repeat after me: "Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight! Awk!" ![]()
Historically and indisputably true. The desire to avoid conflict can lead to the most foolish decisions. Sometimes, you have to head off conflict by early decisive action. But maybe I'm naïve in my belief that such actions need not be carried out using the same means that the enemy uses. My belief that there can be decisive military action without the need for atrocities to ever occur.
Hmm. Ask Israel how much safety they've managed to produce for themselves by using the same tactics as their opponents. Or you could dig out your Ouija board, and ask Adolf Hitler whether, in retrospect, the Blitz was such a good idea. Don't mistake terror tactics for an ultimate weapon - sometimes they produce the exact opposite result to that which was intended. Instead of demoralising the enemy, they galvanise him into action.
So stipulated. I think we're on fairly common ground, as far as the subject of realistic circumstances is concerned. Where we disagree appears to be solely on moral implications, not on practical considerations.
We were never in disagreement about this. Our disagreement centered on whether an atrocious intended consequence (targeting civilians to demoralise the enemy) could be justified by a "greater" atrocity, or by necessity. We are still in fundamental disagreement about this - and I don't think our positions are likely to budge any further.
Nor to me. But taking up arms against an enemy, and using terror tactics against him, are two very different matters. As I implied before, it is what separates (or should separate, though that is not always as true as it ought to be) the U.S. armed forces from the Al-Qaeda terrorists. One is morally superior to the other. But that moral superiority is always in jeopardy, and requires constant vigilance to maintain. It is so very easy to fall into the trap of justifying successively more horrible acts, in the name of defeating an enemy whose acts are indisputable atrocities.
That was uncalled for - both rude and untrue. Apart from the inflammatory language used, "hypocrisy" implies a double standard. I don't have a double standard - I have only the one. But I am fairly certain that I would not be able to live up to it, given sufficient emotional pressure.
On this, we are in perfect agreement.
Hmm. I can't quite wrap my head around this backwards logic, but I think I see what you mean. It amounts to the same, anyway.
I'll tell you what.... you can have the "anti-heros" and the "guard-dog monsters". I'll take the citizen soldiers and the scrupulous few. I may lose the war, but I'll sleep better at night. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempest
![]() ANN Publisher ![]() Posts: 10474 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The only reason I've let this go on is that you two have been having a very intelligent and personal-attack-free discussion. The last few posts unfortunately included a few personal attacks, several of which were responded to with more snide remarks.
Either be 100% civil or drop the OT conversation. -t |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nani?
![]() Posts: 632 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I have been paying attention to this discussion since it started but have not chimed in until now because these are genuinely hard questions.
On Nanking-- It was a massacure justified at the top level. It does not matter whether 100,000 or 300,000 died the fact was they died in the most brutal manner availible. Officers had "head contests" with Samurai swords. Women were raped, had private parts removed. Nothing can justify any of those things. Also, Japanese textbook softpedal those things. The reason for this is the same reason my father read textbooks that pointed out how blacks "benefited" from slavery. In both cases, the political decendants of the perpitrators of these actions were still in power and were/are useing the power to shape opinions to protect themselves. In the case of Japan, they are some factions of the Liberal Democratic party, as well as those govenment buercrats, who essentially survived the war unpurged and then reasserted themselves after the end of the occupation. Not unlike the southerners who reestablished themselves after "reconstruction" during the American Civil War. Enjin, I hate to say it, but like my father I believe you are a victim of such "education". Before I condem her, I want to ask everyone, can you honestly be critical of your own society if push comes to shove? Can all or even a majority of Americans be honest on the situation in Iraq? How about that we indirectly fund Al Queda when put we oil in our gas tank, not to mention what it's doing to our enviroment. The fact is, it's easier to pretend that our society is justified, and we are on dangerous ground when start to ask questions like "Are we defending the freedom of the people of Iraq or are we defending the freedom of the Big Oil companies to make a profit?" or alternately "Are some of those liberals I work beside just trying to glorify themselves (as I do)". I think the best way to prevent such situations is to be honest about the society you live in and it's not easy. As for attrocites-- I do say there are some two kinds. The Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution were the actions of a ruling class justifying it's power and taking care of any "threats" to itself. Hiroshima, Sherman's March, etc. are the actions of one military acting to end a war through drastic action with the justifcation/hope that these actions will end the war sooner and save lives and prevent undesirable situations such as a "North/South Japan". Sometimes they have consequences that can't be seen. I believe part of why Mutually Assured Destruction worked in the cold war is because we had the example of Hiroshima. It's not pretty, but more of us are alive if that is true. Therefore, these actions I can live with. All the Best, Nani? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GATSU
Posts: 15696 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abunai:
I know. I was just having fun. P.S. I find it funny that you're still arguing, despite the fact that you said you'd quit.
Didn't Hitler and Hirohito's generals also have a "higher moral standard"?
How about if he blows up the same people from his ethnic or religious background he's trying to "liberate"?
What if the family is somehow co-operating with his terrorist network?
What do you do if civilians happen to be within the radius of the enemy military sites? Or if civilian centers are where most of the military weapons production goes on?
There's a difference between making that kind of a war and taking responsibility for that war. When the Japanese can openly speak out about Nanking in Japan, and not in the U.S., then we'll compare.
I'd love to hear your views on abortion, but then we'd be dragging this thread out even longer than it's already gone. Anyway, you have to recognize that even in the criminal justice system, there are different degrees of murder to help weed out the heartless bastards from the the "wrong place at the wrong time" killers. And the fact of the matter is that motive plays a big factor in the label you apply to the perp. Anyway, as I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II, it mentions the following: It should be noted that the intention of RAF The Air Staff was to destroy communications to hamper evacuation, not to kill the evacuees.Also from http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm: "In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler)." Again, being part and parcel of a military-industrial complex will lead to your own demise. Whether or not it's moral to have to suffer the consequences for someone else's regime, your refusal to remove yourself from the gears means you will also be smashed in the process when the machine runs out of steam. Do you feel sorry for the Romans who were trampled by German tribes near the end of their civilization? If not, why do you feel sorry for the Third Reich? They destroyed themselves more than we ever could.
You're assuming that the circumstances can always be viewed in black and white, despite the fact that you try to view the perpetrators of the killings in grey. You can't have it both ways.
I think the fact that civilians were used to kill civilians at the WTC is why Dresden pales in comparison. And a lot of "terrorists" are really just poor and uneducated people being exploited by the rich and wealthy to fight their religious wars. I guess you could argue the situation is the same in America right now, but at least our troops actually want to protect civilians.
So in the end, it all goes back to Hitler. After all, the British openly made concessions, and still got the short end of the stick.
What about the children he infected with AIDS with unsanitary needles? Ceaucescu didn't give them a fair trial at life.
I don't consider that morally correct, but if they didn't get the information, the Soviets probably would have, and Stalin might've used his own people as "test subjects" if he didn't already.
Ask their opponents why they keep attacking Israel. [/url] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cookie
Former ANN Editor in Chief
![]() Posts: 2460 Location: Do not contact me for support. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Okay. I think we're done here.
PM me if you have any concerns. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group