I'm not one for violence as a policy. In fact, I think too many people are quick to use the gun when other tactics might work better.
Too many advocate government sanctioned violence, especially if they're not the one doing the actual killing. Somehow the sanitary nature of government violence makes it more palatable for the rest of us to tolerate.
But then, there's the piracy issue.
Three issues fuel the piracy mess off Somalia:
1) No strong government in Somalia to put the smack-down on those exploiting the territorial waters.
2) Willingness of commercial shipping companies to pay ransom because it's less expensive than to pay the families and customers should the results become dire.
3) Willful ignorance by countries with the capacity to stop it militarily.
We're seeing a sea-change (literally) off Somalia. The U.S. under Obama has manned up at sent the pirates to Davey Jones' Locker for messing with us.
A few bullets to the head will stop the lawlessness caused by shipping companies cowardly, albeit capitalistic, ways.
5 comments:
What is this? You're too intellectual for this bullshit.
Pirates are often extremely poor African civilians doing what they have to do to keep their families alive. There was an interview with a bunch of pirates in a European newspaper some days ago and they said that we do what we have to for our wifes and kids to stay alive. And them you're gonna kill? And what do you do with their families then?
Resort to violence and we are in the same category as the pirates. We claim they're uncivilized and suggest the problem be solved by us murdering them. Hallo...?
And it wouldn't stop piracy either. If killing criminals would stop crime then the US would be the safest place on earth but it's exactly the opposite. Violence leads to more violence.
It would also be a violation of human spirit and of our belief in a society built on law and order to resort to violence. It's a hallmark of the civilized human to stay on the right track and do right also when someone else does wrong. How to you promote right when doing wrong yourself?
So common on now, breathe and get back on the humanist track. You're violating your intelligence.
Poverty is not a justification for violence. It makes it understandable, but it doesn't justify it.
Humanism doesn't mean tolerating violence.
All the pirates are doing is grabbing low hanging fruit and the current situation in the Horn will not be solved by excusing what most of us consider "wrong."
Until the 1st world addresses the human rights issues in Africa, the side-effect of piracy and corruption will continue.
In the meantime, we cannot allow such violent acts to continue and the recent approach is a turning point.
Humanists are first and foremost realists.
I didn't say that poverty justifies violence either. I say we can't justify our own violence if we at the same time say that their violence cannot be justified. It's a basic principle: the same rules goes for everybody. Either violence is okay or it is not. If it's not and we say they're doing wrong - well then we can't solve the problem by using violence. If we do, violence becomes legitimate and we can no longer say that they're doing wrong. They're then just doing what we're doing - which we claim is right.
Poverty explains their violence, if we want to stop that then poverty is the issue to address.
Humanists hold the dignity and worth of all people as sacred and endorse universal morality. Realism for a humanist means addressing every issue from reality but without sidestepping the fundamental values humanism stands for. Killing people is definitely a sidestep.
Using your arguments we could also say that the Pope is threathening so many human lives that it can be justified to have him killed (he's actually a bigger threath to this world than the pirates so it would be even more justified to put a bullet to his head in that case). It would be a very pragmatic and realistic solution but it's not humanism.
I agree that the Pope and the policies of the Church are more harmful, but I don't equate them with the violence in the Horn.
Pushing birth control policies that worsen population and the plight of women and children is a far cry from pointing a gun at the head of a child or innocent person and demanding money.
Conflating piracy with ill-conceived and anachronistic political policies excuses the former by reducing its true character: violence for money.
Until violence becomes too costly, from a social and financial standpoint, there's no incentive to stop it.
Now you avoided the central points of my comment. I take that as 1-0 to me ;)
Here's the $1M-question: who has the right to determine who should be killed then?
You want to shoot the pirates. I don't. But I want to shoot the Pope which you don't consider equally as necessary. I'm sure other persons, politicians, and nations would have other opinions on who they want to kill. Who has the right to determine then?
Should everybody have the right to shoot whoever they want? Or should we form some kind of international committee that decide on behalf of humanity who we should kill? How should that committee be set up and who should be in it? And why? Or should we arrange elections and let people vote on who should be killed? Or grant every nation's government the right to shoot who they consider necessary according to that nation's private interests?
I just see chaos in all alternatives.
Post a Comment