|
|
|
Re: J. Attali ... ..., Re: When You Get What You Want, ..., Libya -- Whither the Rule of International Law? ..., Re: On the Track of Opposites ...
Is there àn english edition of J. Attali les Juifs, le Monde et l' Argent?
Thanks,
S. Molnar
I am not familiar with it, but I hope that some of the readers will be able to answer you. WM
William,
While these anecdotes are interesting they are not parallels. I'm surprised that nobody tried to answer the 'saved' boy's question:
"If he now had the opportunity, should he kill a killer who did not kill him when he could have?"
The boy was not SAVED just because the killer, for whatever reason, decided to scare him and not kill him! If this capo had lined up ten kids and shot every other one, did the ones he didn't shoot owe him their lives??? If, on Wednesday, the capo kills the boy in the barracks on your left and on Thursday he kills the boy on your right and then on Friday, just scares you but doesn't kill you, do you owe him your life? I don't think the boy's rhetorical question even needs to be honoured by reprinting it unless you point out the true moral situation.
As for the woman who married her SS savior, I'd say she doesn't owe him anything either. Who is he to extract a promise from a person whose alternative is probably death? Her family was surely in the clutches of other SS men just like him -- except that, not being young and beautiful, no bargain was offered them.
As to the man, Twardowski, who sold his soul to the devil -- he wasn't the devil's victim. Unlike your previous examples, He chose to make the bargain. He could have gone his merry way and let chance and his own industry decide his fate but greed (I'm sure that's what it was as I don't know the story) caused him to make that bargain.
M. WardWe know the anecdote about the angel who turned the hand of baby Moses away from the diamond and toward the burning coal and thus saved his life. Yes, the angel in legend saved Moses' life. We'll never know why the killer preserved the boy in the camp; speculation about it serves for nothing. He owes his life perhaps to an "angel" and revenge may not belong to him. As for the woman who married her SS saviour she might be "smart" to break her promise once she was no longer obliged to keep it. But she kept her word; she didn't want to take advantage of favourable circumstances. I don't remember why Pan Twardowski made the deal with the devil, but I don't care. I care that he gave himself up from a sense of honour (nobile verbum). He was perhaps guilty, but remained a gentleman. WM.
The girl in the camp saved her life which cetainly was the most important thing that she ever had. Had she broken her promise by taking advantage of new circumstances,she would have lost her dignity. She obviously didn't want to give the SS man this "honour" therefore she had no other choice than to keep her word.
For those who think that anything good is going to come out of this NATO led war in Libya, and feel that it is mainly a question of some wrongly supporting Gadaffi, I beg to differ. The choices really are-
--1 A government in power under Gadaffi; orNow, since number 1 is history, and number 2 is being resisted in a civil war 6 months on – and – no one on the NATO side had permitted option 3, then we are left with choices 1 or 2. Honest reasoning compels one to ask the question whether there is strong support for Gadaffi in Libya, and if there is and he is willing to be subjected to a Western style ballot – where then is the “democratic” credibility in not having avoided the civil war and effected the AU plan with a choice at the Western style ballot? But, the answer comes back that the African Union was ignored and over-ridden by US foreign policy and Hillary Clinton treated grown African men, speaking down to and dictating to them, as boys in Addis Ababa – and Africa is to have no voice or say in the continent’s destiny, unless it is designed by, dictated to, and approved by the US, France and Britain.
The honest answer is not to be found in the official fig-leaf cover of “democracy” or NATO’s “humanitarian mission”. These types of operations have a long history, in respect of which the United States of America has been a leader in implementation of similar belligerencies around the world:-
Go to youtube and insert:- CIA Secret Wars w/ Col. John Stockwell: Gross Millions Dead
NATO’s operation in Libya, if one were to compare what that insider CIA person has revealed in the John Stockwell video (above), should lead one to understand from whence the militarist motivation for the Libyan operation came. This Libya war supported by the US, reliant on propelled third-party actors, and advanced by NATO - and - has nothing to do with the promotion of “democracy” in Libya. If the West’s entreaties to Gadaffi had anything to do with Western style democracy being implanted in Libya, one already had the precedent of Gadaffi having disposed of his WMD programme, so there was sufficient indication that he would be responsive to Western non-violent urgings. He had already co-operated with Western intelligence services, which goes some considerable way to having relations that signaled that he was not unreachable on all fronts. If Gadaffi had built up and retained an arsenal of inter-continental ballistic missiles and other significant forms of WMDs that could be fired into Europe or the US, assuredly this type of on-going operation against Libya would not have taken place. This may seem a cynical observation, but I consider it true. When the US/NATO mission ultimately reaches Iran, one will find it interesting to see how that war is pursued, having due regard for the military capabilities of the Iranian government.
continued here
William
I had a hard time following this idea. When I think of Darwinism I start with the cell and the creature crawling out of the swamp. Empathy is higher up on the scale and it isn’t just ‘goody goody’ emotions. Empathy which engenders cooperation is also a survival tool that makes us fit for survival. When you talk about “rampant freedom of empathy which could turn wrong” are you talking about human disputes about, for instance, abortion or welfare? That does seem to happen – and both sides pro and anti abortion would say they are on the side of empathy! The balance does constantly change. I would have liked to see more examples. Is it true that Darwinism is cruel and only saved by empathy? My questions may seem confusing but I think you could have expanded this article a lot by giving some examples.
Nikole
Nikole -- I don't see cooperation as empathy only as a practical solution for success in common interests. In my view, "Rampant freedom of empathy" would mean, for example, refusing to indicate the sex of a child "because it should have the right to choose its sex." Darwinism is on the side of the stronger so it's cruel but it is a natural cruelty because we cannot survive without it. Are you sure that we need examples? I like the idea of people making their own examples. Coming back to ‘empathy' -- what is the name of the Indian king who sent his own daughters into slavery as proof of his own humility?
Back to the index of the Vagabond
William Markiewicz