The ultimate test of your principles of non-violence and position regarding capital punishment isn't how you would deal with the execution of women, children, etc but rather how you would deal with the worst of murderers, the real animals where there is absolutely no doubt they did it and what they did was such a hideous crime that you are absolutely revolted by it. What you would do with the execution of children or women doesn't matter much as only the most bestial societies would consider executing them anyway.
The question is motivated by the viewing yesterday of "Inglourious Basterds" and the most unusual ending that it presented. It's been a long time since the movie was released so I'm assuming it is not a spoiler to consider the ending. If that's a problem for you, this would be a good time to bail out from this article.
The movie is excellent and what compelled me to watch was the question of just where the hell is Tarantino going with this. Discovering that it was successful in the campaign to killer Hitler, Goebbels, Bormann and Goering was an incredible surprise as this wasn't even close to how history unfolded so what was Tarantino trying to tell us. If such people as the Basterds had existed in WWII then perhaps this would have been the outcome. Secondarily was the observation of the most demonic deal with the Jew Hunter which perhaps was to show the depths the generals must plumb to end a war. It's a very long stretch but that would also serve to justify use of the atomic bomb in Japan relative to how many lives would have been lost on both sides in conventional battle on the Japanese mainland.
That "Inglourious Basterds" would have obviated any question of executing Hitler doesn't change the question of what would you have done had Hitler survived the war and been captured. Cat and I had quite a discussion on this yesterday as both of us are highly-passionate about what we believe and our positions differed on his dispatch with Cat believing he should have been executed and me holding my position that he should not.
It's not my intention to shred Cat's position to justify my own as the question is only of academic interest in any case. Hitler killed himself so what you would have done is only a personal question of how you would have dispatched him.
Cat's position is that Hitler should have been executed as, even in a jail cell, he presented an extreme danger to the human race. Therefore, preservation of the society over-rides the commandment of thou shalt not kill.
My position has always been that I would not have executed him as I believe my principles must be consistent and non-negotiable. If I do not support capital punishment then this must hold for everyone.
Supporting Cat's position is what became of Rudolf Hess who became a figurehead for neo-Nazi youths.
The sign reads 'Martyrs never die' but the most disturbing aspect of the sign is the youth of the people holding it. Hess wasn't any kind of a martyr and believed as much as Hitler that Germany had lost in WWI because of a conspiracy between Jews and Bolsheviks. Hess also, among others, signed into law the legislation that began the steps toward The Holocaust in taking away the citizenship of Jews, etc. He was easily as much of a demon as Hitler. (Wiki: Rudolf Hess)
That a similar and likely even larger movement would have developed had Hitler been imprisoned instead of executed appears obvious. Based on the above and the widespread reverence for Hitler, it seems inevitable that such a movement would have arisen and perhaps to devastating effect.
Therefore, Cat's contention that keeping Hitler alive would have been dangerous to humanity seems quite likely to be valid.
Nevertheless, I stand my ground that any principle of non-violence must be universal if it truly is a principle of morality and a necessary requirement of civilisation.
Before considering that any further, perhaps you are in a jail cell with Hitler. You have a gun aimed at him. You could move for the door but perhaps he overpowers you before you ever get there. He will never get out of the room alive as there are armed guards outside it but the question is what do you do. Kill him to save yourself or try to make for the door. There is probably little doubt that Hitler is one of the few for whom most people would have no reservation about pulling the trigger themselves to execute him. Nevertheless, would would Gandhi do.
(Ed: Gandhi would have been smart enough to stay the hell out of that jail cell.)
Right you are, my brother (laughs).
In defense of my position not to execute Hitler, I will submit that we have failed to properly address anti-Semitism in society since WWII. That was one of the roots of Hitler's success and animosity toward Jews is, to this day, a source of power for any despot who chooses to tap into it. Much of the anti-Semitism traces to the money-lending of the Middle Ages, an enterprise that good Christians considered despicable and thus forced Jews into it. That they profited greatly from it engendered massive resentment that exists to this day. One particular irony of the modern age is that Moslems treated Jews much better than Europeans and it wasn't until the creation of the state of Israel that things exploded.
Therefore, I submit that imprisoning Hitler would have been appropriate so long as one can assume that matters of anti-Semitism were appropriately and honestly addressed after the War but we can see just about anywhere that they were not. There is, to this day, a widespread tale that Jewish bankers are responsible for the economic problems assaulting the world. I submit that Hitler is only a symptom of a much larger disease that can return at any time should anyone choose to manipulate it as did Hitler.
To some extent, Cat illustrated my point in her reference to "The Wave," a movie and a book about a Palo Alto school teacher who wanted to demonstrate to his students how Nazism could arise anywhere. He was rather more successful in his effort than he anticipated and called the experiment to a halt. (Wiki: The Wave)
So, what does a good pacifist do! I'm not going to give you an answer as the question is academic but what would you do and, more importantly, why.
Additional reference: The third wave, 1967: an account - Ron Jones
The question is motivated by the viewing yesterday of "Inglourious Basterds" and the most unusual ending that it presented. It's been a long time since the movie was released so I'm assuming it is not a spoiler to consider the ending. If that's a problem for you, this would be a good time to bail out from this article.
The movie is excellent and what compelled me to watch was the question of just where the hell is Tarantino going with this. Discovering that it was successful in the campaign to killer Hitler, Goebbels, Bormann and Goering was an incredible surprise as this wasn't even close to how history unfolded so what was Tarantino trying to tell us. If such people as the Basterds had existed in WWII then perhaps this would have been the outcome. Secondarily was the observation of the most demonic deal with the Jew Hunter which perhaps was to show the depths the generals must plumb to end a war. It's a very long stretch but that would also serve to justify use of the atomic bomb in Japan relative to how many lives would have been lost on both sides in conventional battle on the Japanese mainland.
That "Inglourious Basterds" would have obviated any question of executing Hitler doesn't change the question of what would you have done had Hitler survived the war and been captured. Cat and I had quite a discussion on this yesterday as both of us are highly-passionate about what we believe and our positions differed on his dispatch with Cat believing he should have been executed and me holding my position that he should not.
It's not my intention to shred Cat's position to justify my own as the question is only of academic interest in any case. Hitler killed himself so what you would have done is only a personal question of how you would have dispatched him.
Cat's position is that Hitler should have been executed as, even in a jail cell, he presented an extreme danger to the human race. Therefore, preservation of the society over-rides the commandment of thou shalt not kill.
My position has always been that I would not have executed him as I believe my principles must be consistent and non-negotiable. If I do not support capital punishment then this must hold for everyone.
Supporting Cat's position is what became of Rudolf Hess who became a figurehead for neo-Nazi youths.
The sign reads 'Martyrs never die' but the most disturbing aspect of the sign is the youth of the people holding it. Hess wasn't any kind of a martyr and believed as much as Hitler that Germany had lost in WWI because of a conspiracy between Jews and Bolsheviks. Hess also, among others, signed into law the legislation that began the steps toward The Holocaust in taking away the citizenship of Jews, etc. He was easily as much of a demon as Hitler. (Wiki: Rudolf Hess)
That a similar and likely even larger movement would have developed had Hitler been imprisoned instead of executed appears obvious. Based on the above and the widespread reverence for Hitler, it seems inevitable that such a movement would have arisen and perhaps to devastating effect.
Therefore, Cat's contention that keeping Hitler alive would have been dangerous to humanity seems quite likely to be valid.
Nevertheless, I stand my ground that any principle of non-violence must be universal if it truly is a principle of morality and a necessary requirement of civilisation.
Before considering that any further, perhaps you are in a jail cell with Hitler. You have a gun aimed at him. You could move for the door but perhaps he overpowers you before you ever get there. He will never get out of the room alive as there are armed guards outside it but the question is what do you do. Kill him to save yourself or try to make for the door. There is probably little doubt that Hitler is one of the few for whom most people would have no reservation about pulling the trigger themselves to execute him. Nevertheless, would would Gandhi do.
(Ed: Gandhi would have been smart enough to stay the hell out of that jail cell.)
Right you are, my brother (laughs).
In defense of my position not to execute Hitler, I will submit that we have failed to properly address anti-Semitism in society since WWII. That was one of the roots of Hitler's success and animosity toward Jews is, to this day, a source of power for any despot who chooses to tap into it. Much of the anti-Semitism traces to the money-lending of the Middle Ages, an enterprise that good Christians considered despicable and thus forced Jews into it. That they profited greatly from it engendered massive resentment that exists to this day. One particular irony of the modern age is that Moslems treated Jews much better than Europeans and it wasn't until the creation of the state of Israel that things exploded.
Therefore, I submit that imprisoning Hitler would have been appropriate so long as one can assume that matters of anti-Semitism were appropriately and honestly addressed after the War but we can see just about anywhere that they were not. There is, to this day, a widespread tale that Jewish bankers are responsible for the economic problems assaulting the world. I submit that Hitler is only a symptom of a much larger disease that can return at any time should anyone choose to manipulate it as did Hitler.
To some extent, Cat illustrated my point in her reference to "The Wave," a movie and a book about a Palo Alto school teacher who wanted to demonstrate to his students how Nazism could arise anywhere. He was rather more successful in his effort than he anticipated and called the experiment to a halt. (Wiki: The Wave)
So, what does a good pacifist do! I'm not going to give you an answer as the question is academic but what would you do and, more importantly, why.
Additional reference: The third wave, 1967: an account - Ron Jones
No comments:
Post a Comment