it seems that the scale of sudan genocide is increasing (even though this article was written in 2004) but I don't know why people are so concerned about genocide. Why is genocide so bad? Let's think about another factor, overpopulation in this planet. In terms of that problem, isn't genocide pretty pleasant occurence? (disregarding all the morals such as that murder is bad)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0403-01.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I dont mean to target personally but that is utterly absurd. The entire reason we are studying these topics is to get a better sense of how to PROTECT human rights, and how to comprehensively define them since we already (I thought) have agreed that they inherent in being a human. Your life cannot just be taken arbitrarily because the world is overpopulated, or because of your religion, that is the biggest theoretical concerned with Darfur. Innocent lives (you are an innocent life how would you like to be murdered because of overpopulation) are being taken every day and I feel that there is a certain moral obligation to other human lives that we need to uphold.
I don't think the entire reason we study these topics is to get a better sense of how to PROTECT human rights. What can't my life taken arbitrarily? overpopulation is just one example of many other factors that support that genocide is not wrong(doesn't mean it's right either) And certainly there are innocent people who are dying but they are dying because they are weak species or surrounded by too much stronger and greedy power around them. I think moral is a good thing that keeps society but I don't agree that there is such obligation as moral one to other's life. Are you saying that human lives are worthier than lives of any other species?
By the way, religion is just one factor that causes conflict. Basically, any kind of difference between or among individuals or groups causes conflict and can lead to somebody's death. Everyone's opinion is different and sometimes conflict leads to physical fight or even armed fight (as weaponary technology improves, both murder and massacre become more easy). Then the stronger one will probably win (what i mean by stronger one is the one who is alive at the end no matter how physically strong that individual is and how convincing he/she is) and would have killed the oppossing one. Is it wrong then to kill in this case? Since there is law in United States and many developed country, we can legally indict him if it happenned in such countries, but you can't say it's wrong in such country that doesn't have such good security. There is no spot where moral can be if you can die (i am overgeneralizing).
My point is not what I said above is right, but that moral is not something that is god-given or that should be forced to everyone. In addition, everyone's moral compass varys depending on what one think is appropriate and what is not. From this difference, there can be also conflict as well. Death isn't a bad thing, I would say. One anyway dies at some point. Death, moral, justifiability, law, struggle, pain and etc are all different issue. Sometimes, concepts of some of these mingle and blur the bigger picture.
Sorry about awkward wordings. I don't think I am conveying my opinion well.
Post a Comment