Of course, that is not true. I expect the majority of the killing of humans that takes place is not really the product of hate at all. I expect that it is the cold hard result of somebody's 'cost-benefit analysis.' Of course, when you need to actually get the killing done on a large scale or even to get it 'authorized' on a large scale, then drumming up a bunch of hatred is, unfortunately, probably the most effective way to go about creating the required attitudes and getting the authorization, and maybe even the manpower, needed.
Mobs can often be deadly and clearly run on hate. But what about the military. I suppose you could say the difference between a military unit and a mob is how much 'hatred' had to be established to get them to do the job. The difference between a soldier and 'mob'ster is how much he is motivated by hate (ie. fear) and how much by that 'cost-benefit analysis.'
The purpose of military training is primarily to reduce the need for the 'hatred'. In the fog of hatred, skills get fuzzy and judgment becomes unreliable. Soldiers that act to attain a goal based on good analysis and planning are much more efficient than a mob. However; in large units, of mostly mediocre minds, hatred is still a tool routinely used to get effective action. The deleterious effects of the 'hatred' are somewhat mitigated by stringent limits on independent action and heavy 'top down' control. Unfortunately two problems arise: One; the top is not always that much better at exchanging 'cost-benefit analysis' for fear than the bottom. Two; the top can't always be everywhere all the time. It is fear and the resulting 'hatred' that cause the abuses like those in the Iraqi or Afghani prisons. It is fear and the resulting hatred that cause things like the My Lai massacre.
Can we do anything about these problems? Well certainly more training and more stringent standards for military personnel would help. Elite units such as Navy SEALs, etc. attempt, and mostly succeed, in nearly eliminating the need for hatred with extensive training and selection, to the point where each man could be a reasonable leader and make effective 'cost-benefit analysis' on the spot. We could do a much better job of training even the ordinary troops in the skills that they need and in the attitude that would be most effective, but we don't and probably won't.
Why not? A soldier's job is multifaceted, to be sure, but one thing truly separates it from any civilian job; at some place or time any soldier may be called upon to kill human beings selectively and effectively. But we will not train most of our soldiers in the techniques and attitudes they need because the majority of the populace is afraid to think that killing without hatred is possible. The thought that people might kill without hatred is scary because most of us think we know how to avoid being the 'object of hatred', or at least detect when we are; however we are not at all sure that we are not some sort of 'serious problem' for somebody. In fact, we are so sure of our importance that we just know we must be a 'serious problem' to somebody. Which is just another fallacy we let guide our thinking. I suggest that we could all do well to keep in mind what somebody famous once said; "You would worry a lot less about what people thought of you if you realized how seldom they did."
But isn't killing 'in cold blood' just plain immoral? Discussion of 'what's immoral?' aside, in what situation is 'cold blooded killing' immoral? Is the swat team sniper that takes out the gunman holding ten hostages an immoral murderer? Would he be justified only if he fired after the gunman pulled the trigger on his 1st hostage, 2nd hostage, or 3rd hostage? If he waited until the 4th hostage was shot, does that then make him, the reluctant sniper, guilty of aiding and abetting the murder of that 4th hostage? When the passengers of that 9/11 flight that crashed deliberately organized and fought back, forcing the hijackers to either lose control or else intentionally crash the plane, were they then the immoral murders of the hijackers and their fellow passengers?
In this country we are all the beneficiaries of killing done on a the basis of good 'cost-benefit analysis.' And I say we would be much better off in a much safer world if we actually encouraged that approach.
Take Iraq for example; supposedly the problem went something like this: Saddam H controlled the Iraqi people with an iron fist. Saddam H controlled the Iraqi government completely; therefore the country could not be dealt with via "normal" diplomatic means. Saddam H was an ardent and dangerous enemy of western civilization. Saddam H had to be removed from power and 'choice' returned to the Iraqi people.
While the validity and importance of any of those propositions is open to debate, let us stipulate, for this arguments sake, that they are all true. Logic should tell you that on the basis of good 'cost-benefit analysis' we should send in a small team, say five or six men to assassinate Saddam H and, when the job is done, use all the diplomatic powers available to us to influence the outcome of the resulting shakeup.
If necessary we can try this eight or ten times, failing over and over again until we finally have success and only lose a few dozen people at most.
But NO! That would be immoral! We send in thousands and thousands of men and women and kill hundreds or even thousand on each side, instead. It is the moral way! Never mind that in order to do this mass invasion we have to whip up a few tons of unjustified hatred. Demonize the same people we say we are trying to help. Put our own young people in positions they are not equipped to handle, asking them to treat civilly people whom only days or weeks before they were asked to hate and kill. Do you see a problem here? I sure do!
Who made this silly rule anyway? Who encourages people to adopt these warped values? I expect you would find that it is those who do not have to go to war, but who might be the target of an assassin, that promote this ridiculous travesty. Old men in power that would rather send thousands of you, or your sons and daughters, to risk death than put themselves in harms way.
There is no intrinsic immorality in killing out of reason, and there is most certainly no intrinsic morality in killing out of fear.
0
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 1