Over at BlackFive, Grim posted a piece which has become … kinda controversial.
It’s called “On The Virtues Of Killing Children” and you ought to read it.
It reminded me, strongly, of an old post of mine which I’m reproducing here.
LES MAINS SALES
So I was stuck in traffic riding my motorcycle to the client site today, which meant that the ride was more contemplative than usual (if I’m riding through traffic, I can’t think about anything but riding…).
And I was thinking about Avdeon Carol’s post, and what it is that I find so grating about many people (not including her at this point, since I don’t know her well enough) who share the general ‘attitude space’ I’m trying to talk about.
And I had an idea I just had to try out on you guys.
A long time ago, I talked about the moral importance of hunting…that I felt it somehow wrong for people to both eat meat that they buy in the store and yet somehow they deny their responsibility for the life that was taken for their consumption. For me, having hunted somehow solves this problem…I have taken the responsibility, I have had my hands up to the elbows in the bloody mess, and changed something from an animal to meat for my table.
But when I read much of what comes from the left, I’m left with the feeling that they want to consume the benefits that come from living in the U.S. and more generally the West without either doing the messy work involved or, more seriously, taking on the moral responsibility for the life they enjoy.
We enjoy this life because a number of things happened in the world’s (our) history. Many of them involved one group dominating (or brutalizing or exterminating) another, or specific actions (Dresden, Hiroshima) whose moral foundation is sketchy at best.
“Do you think one can govern innocently? Purity is a matter for monks, clerics, not for politicians. My hands are dirty to the elbows. I have shoved them in filth and blood,” Hoederer says in Sartre’s ‘Dirty Hands’.
Part of political adulthood is the maturity to realize that we are none of us innocents. The clothes we wear, money we have, jobs we go to are a result of a long, bloody and messy history.
I see my job as a liberal as making the future less bloody than the past.
But I accept the blood on my hands. I can’t enjoy the freedom and wealth of this society and somehow claim to be innocent. I don’t get to lecture people from a position of moral purity. No one spending U.S. dollars, or speaking with the freedom protected by U.S. laws gets to.
Posted by Armed Liberal at December 11, 2002 11:19 AM
Are you saying we should kill and eat the terrorists?
Perhaps I need to read the article again.
The analogy to hunting and eating animals is unenlightening, at best, on this issue.
First off, in both scenarios where you claim to have “taken responsibility for” your actions, you are the perpetrator of these actions; you’re on the safe side. So even the term “taken responsibility” is inaccurate…it is more like “come to a moral justification” or “pragmatic acceptance” for actions you think are wrong. It’s as if you are trying to turn complacency and callousness into virtues.
Second, for your hypothesis to hold, you would also need to acknowledge that you would feel the same way if your children were killed in a war that the perpetrators had convinced themselves was morally correct (maybe herein only meaning one they considered necessary for their own survival).
If you can accept being the victim as well as the perpetrator of violence against children for political/war purposes (isn’t this what it is really about?), which you seem to link to your own personal happiness and well-being, than your argument would be consistent, at least, regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not*. Otherwise, you’d be vulnerable to accusations of “situational ethics”, which only serve to sharpen, rather than diminsh, conflicts among people, resulting in more, not less, blood spilled.
*(Which I most certainly do not on the basis of a flawed premise…that killing children is and/or has been necessary to perpetuate our way of life…but I don’t think getting into that argument with you will be productive.)
Well, if you’re going to read it, for God’s sake read the comments too… particularly my last comment there.
That piece was written for a particular audience accustomed to thinking about military topics and familiar with the American military mindset. I’ve come to realize, after three days of abuse, that that mindset contains basic assumptions not shared by the population at large.
In order to understand what was intended, then, you have to know what is assumed, both by me and the audience for which I intended it, about what it means to pursue war.
(emphasis mine)
This seems to me to be saying that if one belives something is morally correct, that makes it so. Or to put it another way, if I think it’s morally correct to kill enemy combatants, and my enemy thinks it’s morally correct to kill civilians on both sides, that our positions are morally equivalent.
I don’t believe this is the case. Just because you are convinced something is right, does not necessarily make it so. Hitler believed eliminating the Jews was the right and moral thing to do. Did that make it so? (Sorry to drag out the tired old analogy.. but I believe it’s valid).
That’s the tough thing about morals. You can’t just pick what you feel is right and say “that’s moral”. You have to justify it. We make the distinction between combatants and civilians because we recognize that war is ugly and we want to attempt to keep safe those who have decided not to take part, or can’t take part (e.g. young children). We can’t guarantee they will be spared the horrors, but we can do what we can within reason. When facing an enemy who gleefully wants to bring the full horrors to as many people as possible – in fact often singles out the innocent – I think you can make a pretty good argument that no matter how convinced they are of their moral superiority, they are wrong.
It’s not that our morals are perfect necessarily. But I believe they are at least better.
Grim, I saw your piece when it was posted, and just revisited. The distinction among those who are really engaging the issue, and the drive-by (knee)jerks of various description is quite obvious. You’re doing fine.
The matter of built-in framing assumptions is both correct and an important topic to explore further. If it’s felt to be redundant to the B5 audience, I’d hope that the WoC management would invite you and anyone else inclined and qualified to lay out the de jure and de facto ROE framework here. (How about it, Joe & Marc?)
I don’t mean that in the sense of any necessary apologia, but that one consequence of the professionalization of the military is that J. Q. Public for the most part has no clue of the existence of that framework, or its legal and moral underpinnings. When and if we get to the point that it’s called into question as a matter of national policy – and we seem to share the belief that we may be headed there – a little education in advance might ameliorate the unhelpful posturing and squabbling that you’re tasting.
#4
I’m talking about when enemies are morally equivalent, even though my wording raises the question you discuss, which is interesting but not central to my point.
I have been on the killing floor. I have helped butcher 2,000 hogs a day. Chain mail on my left hand razor sharp knife (which I kept sharp myself) on my right.
My dad ran a butcher shop in an old fashioned (Dobie Gillis) grocery store he owned.
If you are not willing to butcher the meat you shouldn’t be eating it is my philosophy. That includes chicken and fish.
Andy L., Every perpetrator of war feels morally justified, so that is no help.
My criteria is: has liberty been advanced.
For instance – when we allowed the North Vietnamese to defeat the South (when Congress refused its support) did the cause of liberty advance or retreat?
What ever you say about the running of the war when America abandoned its ally – liberty retreated. The south may have had bad government. The north was much much worse.
Some times these judgements can’t be made until long after the war. Thus, while in war you have to rely on promises and track record.
BTW I’m a US Navy vet so I have done my time in those killing fields as well.
The worst blood I have on my hands is supporting the Congress that abandoned the South Vietnamese. Never again.
Grim Is right The Truth sometimes hurts and Reality often is not pretty but it is what it is.
And for you Pacifist pukes out their chew on this War should be hell war should be horrible otherwise you get what we have today never ending limited war. The worse war is once started the less people will want to go there.
My question thou is this=
How many dead, how many horrendous attacks, how many sacrifices, how much death on our side, must we suffer before the West is willing to do what must be done to win (whatever that entails WHATEVER EVEN WW2 style or worse Roman style warfare) HOW MANY that is the question.
The Islamic Radicals are not going to stop there is no compromise there is no offer short unconditional surrender and submission to the Radicals and their beliefs that will quench their thirst for world domination. Whether the west wakes up at the next terrorist attack, after Israel falls, after E Europe, falls after Africa, After Paris, London, Berlin are racked with Baghdad style horrific violence, after New York is a smoking cinder, after the Bio/Chem attacks kills millions, HOW MUCH BLOOD HOW MUCH PAIN until we do what it takes to win HOW MUCH?
I think around 50million died in WW2 if the west then would have not summoned the balls and stomach to do what had to be done to defeat Germany & Japan how much larger would have that number been? China alone would have beaten that number after Japan finished their genocide of the Chinese and that’s not counting the Pilipino, Indonesian, Burmese, Indians, Koreans and Nazi Germany was just getting warmed up their genocide of Russia, Africa, the unworthy in Europe and America I would guess your answer pretty close to the populations of Japan + qualifying Arians (maybe even the Japanese also after we were crushed) minus the world population. Sometimes the hard choice must be made sometimes horrors must be done to avoid worse horrors from happening sometimes millions must die to save Billions sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do! No one likes it no one wants it but someone must do it!
I think soon the West is going to be forced to answer this question. Our forefathers were forced to answer this question and WW2 was waged today it looks unavoidable as it did then.
Don’t neglect the value of time. We need not right all wrongs immediately (nor could we do so). What if by delaying we allow other societies to change their own governments or culture?
Concretely, Iran is obviously a menace and a danger to Israel and by its support of terrorism, to us. Perhaps it’s true that our love of children costs us flexibility. But perhaps it also should give us the patience to exhaust every other option.
After all, even with cultures of death all over the world, and airplane terrorists notwithstanding, I live in great comfort and safety compared to many in the world. Just because the enemy wills my destruction does not mean it will happen.
Consider this a blogspot trackback.
Grim: Killing Children
#9 passerby,
How many people/children would you be willing to let die to keep your comforts?
That seems like a pretty craven position.
This is also a Winds of Change thread that Grim started: (link)
1) I can’t accept this parallel: responsibility and all, still you don’t need to hunt. Literally. First, some people refuse to eat meat — but we don’t have to go so far: all the meat you need in order not to starve is already availabe in your local supermarket. So you kill for fun and not for food.
2) Taking guidance from Sartre novels (or any novels, actually) is a shaky practice.
3) And finally, what are you trying to say here? That we must realize that eating meat involves killing living creatures? That our human past is full of blood? Those are truisms. “Part of political adulthood is the maturity to realize that we are none of us innocents” is also a truism not worthy of discussion — unless it’s a ramp-up to something more specific. What could that be? Are you saying that the fact that our past has been bloody should serve as an indulgence for bloodshed that hasn’t taken place yet? Whatever the past, we are certainly innocent of any bloodshed that — in decreasing order — hasn’t taken place yet, or, in most cases that we haven’t taken part in, or advocated, or allowed to happen.
But it’s pointless to speak in generalities of this sort… truisms being what they are always kinda seem correct. It is the practical conclusions that we choose to derive from them that matter, but you didn’t get there. So? No, most people in most cases don’t need to hunt, otherwise, blah. Did I miss anything?
Moreover, aren’t you conflating the notion of innocence with being an indirect beneficiary of something? I think one can indirectly benefit w/o being guilty of that thing.
Innocence is the lack of guilt, but we can only talk of being guilty of something when it was witin our powers to choose the line of action about that thing. Which, of course, does not apply to the past. So, methinks, we _are_ kind of innocent of the past (so long as it’s not _our_ past).
Agree?
Still speaking in generalities, of course.
Broom.
I think you pointed out some of the problems AL has with this article, but I’m sure he’ll have a retort!
As for me, I believe that morally we should not vote for people who support a war, or vote for a war, unless we are willing to fight it ourselves. This should make it a very tough decision, not anything like watching Monday Night Football, or going to a peacenik/feel-good rally. As grown-ups, we must be aware that sometimes moral choices are required, war means horrible things, and we take ownership of those things. Even if it means getting our hands bloody.
But no, I’m not going out in the woods and hunting Bambi. I grew up in a family that did, and while I understand the “one with nature” part of it, I also understand that we live in an industrialized society. If I gotta hunt cows to eat steak I’ll do it, and if I gotta smelt iron to have a belt buckle I’ll do that, but I’m not building tents of tree branches in the woods any time soon.
Having said that, I think AL is also talking about the warrior mentality and honor. Or maybe the trick of AL’s style is that sometimes he doesn’t really talk about anything specific at all! We just all fill in the details depending on what we’re thinking! Sort of our own WoC oracle.
I hear you, Armed Lib, and I understand the natural repugnance that comes from confronting the horrors of war. It’s especially repugnant in this day and age when super-duper high-tech weapons were supposed to make war quick, easy, and only kill the enemy soldiers.
Oops, somebody forgot to tell Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda there are “combatants” and “non-combatants”, according to the rules of modern warfare. Looks like they (and their sponsors Syria & Iran, and suppliers Russia & PR China) see war the old fashioned way, where war is made on the entire population, not just the soldiers/warriors standing in the way of the attackers.
So much for imposing morality on war, as if that ever really stood a chance, anyway. The whole purpose of Western Civilization regarding war since the conversion of Constantine has been to reduce the damage to a necessary minimum of destruction. Too bad the rest of the world is still mentally in the period before the Treaty of Westphalia, when entire regions were harried just to inflict damage. No real plan for immediate gain, just damage. The conquest could come later, when the defenders were to tired & hungry to swing their swords & spears effectively.
Look at Israel & Lebanon these days, and despite all the kewl modern weapons, we might as well be back in the Middle Ages again. We even have the Medieval tradition of carrying on negotiations with a non-state entity! Nasrallah is a rebellious baron with dreams of empire, whatever diplomatic title he holds. As a student of Eastern European and Middle Eastern history of the Medieval & Renaissance period, I recognize his type. No good has ever come of negotiating with regional warlords like him, and the Mamlukes and Ottomans never bothered. They just levelled towns and villages until the official submission was given. (The pre-Christian Roman Empire was of the same opinion on uppity fanatics and warlords, see what they did to the Jews back when the Zealots were the Middle Eastern crazies du jour.)
The dream of Star Trek warfare is over for the forseeable future. The grim reality of the Four Horsemen is still here. War means the sword and the torch, slaughter and destruction until the cowed enemy sues for peace in the rubble of their capital. Anything else is only a temporary solution. At least, that is what the Islamofascists are thinking right now as they gloat over Israel’s non-victory.
We better get over our scrupulous distaste for the sights and sounds of war, and meet the Islamofascist enemy head on. Should we wait until Iran gets The Bomb and decides to raise the destruction to a whole new level? Or should we of the West harden our hearts to sob stories about “collateral” damage on CNN and grimly pursue our enemies to their last refuge, when they realize that further fighting will only be useless? Sherman still had the right idea, make sure the enemy is 100% convinced of their defeat, then they will surrender and mean it. Cease-fires, negotiated truces, and hands-off rules of engagement don’t cut it for a lasting victory.
(This is not to say that we should make pyramids of skulls in Damascus and Baghdad in the matter of Tamerlane. But if we are going to go to war, we should make it War in red ruin to the Islamofascists until they get tired of the “struggle” for supremacy that they want in place of enlightened peace and prosperity. We want to make the Islamofascist Muslims value living children, not toddler suicide bombers or bomb-shredded corpses paraded in front of news cameras.)
exdem13: You’re someone who tells it like it is. Funny thing is, video games– I play a lot of strategy games. (Computer players are notoriously inept unless they are given special advantages, so usually, its mostly between players that things matter.)
When you play you play to win. I recall Alpha Centauri (which is a good civ/sim/strat game.) I prefer to play as the Spartans, the group that takes a slight industrial disadvantage for an advantage in combat.
The rule is, you don’t trust the other factions until they submit to you, are not a threat to you, or ARE you. Everything prior to that is simply jostling for position.
The idea of making democracies is we are making them us in effect, postulated on the idea that liberal democracies (especially under the U.N) don’t actively threaten one another.
This may not be the case, depending on the culture of the democracy.
If such is the case, strategically we have two other options.
1. Make them no longer a threat
2. Make them submit
I think that some people are convinced that 1 is already true, based on assumptions about our power or about the weakness of our enemies. Some of it might just be posturing to try to create a favorable environment for a ‘people’s revolution’ . (Internation ANSWER for instance.)
If in Alpha Centauri I had run into a faction who would use Planet Busters (the nuclear, fusion, quantum and singularity superweapons) if they got them on whom they wanted regardless of the international organization which forbades them (part of the game.) I would destroy that faction in any way I could. The only reason I would rely on my allies to dispatch the enemy would be
1. I knew they were capable
2. I did not have the means myself
If that faction was, due to economic, cultural or military considerations, undefeatable, the game was more or less lost. You know, checkmate.
Thankfully, no faction like that existed in the game.
But they seem to in real life…
/though to be honest, there was nothing like offshore bombardment followed by hovertank invasion. In the game there was no city that was uncapturable. In reality such cities might exist.
River #17
It’s immensely fascinating how that computer simulations are chasing reality, leaving game players in a position to talk stragic theory.
Before any readers discount this, remember Moore’s Law. The consequence of all those transistors is higher and higher fidelity simluations.
I’m afraid you’re right, River, and I’m also afraid that we won’t have the chance to push the “game reset” button. Perhaps we can hope for ineptitude, fog of war, and human foibles.