Morals!

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Sat Jun 29 07:09:39 MDT 1996


>In a message dated 96-06-28 13:04:51 EDT, you write:
>
>Actually, the proper translation is "Thou shalt not commit murder."  which is
>far different from killing.    If you think about it, this makes more sense
>being that after god handed Israel the ten commandments, the tribes still had
>to wage war to win the promised land.  In Psalms it states there is "a time
>to kill" and I think that war is one of them.  For if we were to take the
>stance that "thou shalt not "kill"", then the likes of Hitler, who had no
>trouble violating it, would control the world.  Hitler not only killed in
>war, but he committed mass murder in the prison camps.  A stark difference.
> And makes more sense than "thou shalt not kill."

The above is not entirely true. Hitler was a product of someting and so was
his Brown shirts and SS.. Perhaps the highest form of the present system we
live in which can,t solve any moral dilemas or social and economic dilemas
facing humanity. In fact world war 2 did not solve the question of Facism,
it just redevided the world under the present system. And Poof, 50 years
later the facists gangs are once again raising there heads..

>First off, gang members shouldn't go to jail simply BECAUSE they are in the
>gang.  That is "association" which is guaranteed by the first amendment.
> It's when they commit a CRIME, which usually goes hand in hand with gang
>membership, is when they should be locked up.

But they do! Because the state and society has determined that there
behavior is criminal. However the state does not take up the envionment the
gangs are raised in. In fact they are usually responsible for this. And as
of late it appears that the state is even putting increasing pressure on
these invionments with cuts in Benefits which in turn will lead to race wars
for example in the United States..

>As for the B52 pilot, the answer is absolutely NOT.  He is participating in
>war.  War is the breaking of an economy and government to the point where
>they cannot wage war in return.  There are civilian casualties, that is a sad
>fact of war.  Something on the order of 20 million non-combatants died during
>the fighting of WWII.  But I am sure you agree that Hitler had to be stopped

Did the Vietnamese right to Independence have to be stopped by colonialist
intervention first by the Japanese,then the French and finally the
Americans. Do the 1 million children effected by Agent Orange born after the
war with mental and physical defects get chalked up as innocent victims of
war. Or are they victims of a colonial aggressor who dropped this shit on
the villages....

>Whereas, the likes of William Calley, etc.  in vietnam, the Japanese actions
>on the Ratan deathmarch, and the aforementioend Nazi atrocities against he
>Jews, did not perform ordinary functions of war.  Calley slaughtered a
>village that was defenseless.  Both Japanese and Nazi's were forced to answer
>for and were punished by either execution or life in prison for the
>"war-crimes" they committed.  These actions were not sanctioned by the
>articles of war. These are examples of committing murder and going to jail
>for it.

I see and true to and extent. However today its not the Bill Calleys being
put on trial in Hague. It is the leaders of the Serbian Nationalists who
rightly are accused of being responsible. However who ever even thought that
Richard Nixon should be brought to Hague...

>Yes, I have heard this argument before.  But humans don't possess all the
>behavior of the animal kingdom.  We mate face to face (for the most part), we
>take a mate for life (not like a dog, where 'any dog will do') and we protect
>our children.  Unlike some in the animal kingdom who eat their young.

You must be joking! This might have been true if you had been watching
teelevision in the 50ties, howerver not today. In fact divorce is more the
norm and sexual deviation is far more apparent then you think.
>
>We develop and maintain relationships.  Clean up after ourselves.  Have
>conern for the environment. Our competitions aren't based on kill or be
>killed.  An ordinary man doesn't do business by achieving the top by
>assasination and then killing to stay there.  Whereas in the animal kingdom,
>battles for control of territory often go to the death.  And humanity tends
>to try and give relief to those who are weak, rather than let them die
>because they couldn't survive.  I think these, and many other behaviors show
>some innate morality.  Morality that is built upon by mentoring, education,
>and even spiritual devotion.

Oh really which world do you live in. My world is called the rat race. And
the is a saying that behind every great fortune are some pretty terrible
crimes. Naturally we can see 15 year old on death row for killing someone
while robbing a drugstore for 20 dollars. But the big fish don,t get blood
on their hands, they just give the orders..

><<I mean even Hitler was adored by some in fact millions. And if he had won
>the war the moral code would certainly see a lot different then it does
>today..>>

>
>I am not so sure about that.  When Germany marched and occupied Europe, he
>defeated forces with relative ease and established puppet governments or
>military governors.  But there was still underground resistance.  People may
>have been defeated, but they never stopped resisting his immoral tyranny.
> History is full of rebellion for freedom.  Sometimes it is successful (The
>US revolutionary war) sometimes it isn't (Tienneman Square).  But the theme
>is the same.  People who wish freedom fight to be free.  Morality doesn't
>change depending on who is the victor.  Morality is constant.  And there are
>basic elements of morality that are shared by all cultures.

Really? In fact there were far more collaborators then resistors and ten
times as more passive elements that accepted Hiytlers status quo in the
occupied countries.
The reason Hitler was defeated was the mistake of  a two front war. And
hardly had anything to do with morals. Your theme is very romantic but in
the final analisis it is the violent overthrow of one society by the other
which decides the moral code.

>Back to the relationship of character to morality.  Can a man have character
>and be immoral or amoral?  And can a man with no character have morality?

Both! and Yes! Just depends on who sets the rules..

malecki








     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list