vegetarian and atomic bombs
have you ever heard about the vegetarian who attacked the workers [human] in a beef factory? we would not want to connect with cruel vegetarians. even by association.
if the "good guys" perform violent actions, then what is the difference? why are they good? an episode in "star trek" [season three in 1969] deals with this issue so i introduce 2 ideas:
1, we know that rules, such as "red lights" at intersection, do have exceptions. ambulances in action "violate" as an exception, and this exception indicate that the "ends" do justify the "means" even the "same action" that violates the "law to stop at right lights." the law, which has a purpose to share the area of the intersection among many drivers going different directions, has an exception... everyone must stop except ambulances, to show that the ends do justify the means. using the ends to justify the means is "not evil" as my ma lied to me, unless the goal is evil. such as using the ambulance to selfishly get to the sport event faster than others insted of its purpose which is to quikly go to ill people and "move them"=ambulate, to the hospital.
that red light excepton teaches that the same action, forbidden to me, is justifyd by the end goal. the only doubt is the "price." but the idea "ends justify means" is not wrong.
if someone is dying then that justifies exceptions in rules even for a doubt maybe the ambulance was called for somebody dying... or a prank.
the good guys use "weapons and force" for rescue missions, to save other people, for a different goal "ends" than the evil people. the goal does justify the violence while those who use violence to control others are by that definition evil.
for example in the following debate about vegitarian, the lady trying to prevent dialog was the evil one by trying to control other people.
THE STORY
once, many years ago, a group of guests sat by a table. the host and hostess served chicken to each plate. one guest, a young teenage girl protested "dont give me meat." i replied "what is your reason?" the hostess... probably based on past experience of people arguing, interfered and said "dont talk about that". the teen obeyed. i was stubborn. i askd the teen "do you want to say your opinion?"--"yes"-- if so ignore the bossy lady who wants to control you."
the one trying to hide opinions... despite good intentions: to prevent an argument, was evil for controlling other people.
what is the rest of the debate?
veg': meat is gross.--me: please explain--v:it is simply gross--me: you mean the taste is gross for you?--no! that is not what i mean--please explain--"it is gross kuz it was alive".--me: but this meat was cookd by the hostess so it is not gross.--that is not what i mean--me: it seems you lack any good reason to be vegetarian...
all this time the hostess was rudely interrupting, many times repeatedly, trying to stop the dialog. interrupting is rude and bad and and in this case also bossy and controlling so i ignored the bossy hostess.
the teen continued "i do have a reason"--"ignore the bossy lady and say what it is... i gave you a chance to explain yourself but you dont have any reasoning."--i give up! you cruel meat-eaters would never understand"--me: you mention cruel. are you caling the hostess cruel? [strategy pit them against each other]. hostess "i am not cruel" teen: no i dont mean she is cruel just YOU.
me: you probably refer to the PAIN of the animal.--v: exactly.--me: when we BITE this chicken does it feel pain?--v: stop ridiculing me!, hostess LOUDLY "enough! how many times do i have to tell you?" me to hostess "she said she WANTS to say her opinion so stop rudely interrupting." hostess fled to kitchen.
host said "you hurt her feelings". i ignored both and presd the teen "i gave you a chance to explain your opinion but you dont HAVE any reason. if no pain not cruel."--v: the processing is cruel.--me: does that forbid the product?" silence. i continud "if not then you can eat the meat, AFTER the process, kuz you are not inflicting pain."
the teen "whatever, i will try some." so the teen ate the chicken. surprise! that actually occurd.
in this story a veg would claim "the meat-eater is cruel" unless it is a lion, while in fact the bite does not inflict pain. the "indirect" is AFTER the cruelty and does not even CAUSE the actions performed by the meat killers. those who kill the chicken believe the action is not evil despite the harm, to the chickens body and life... because the action is FOR A GOAL the "ends" food do justify the means killing the animal.
so the same action "killing a pet dog or killing a chicken" depends on the goals. what? you would eat your dog? well if your pet found you dead, it would eat you....
so now the trek episode.
kirk and spock went to a planet and wrestled with some people known for their evil.
at the end: the space-alien askd kirk "you both used violence so what is the dfference between good and evil?" kirk explained the goal was different. "we were rescuing" when we used force but the violence performed to control others and take personal gain is the evil. so that is the difference.
when u.s. invaded iraq was it the same action as iraq "invading" kuwait? one difference was that u.s. was "not annexing" the land. and pland to exit and later did exit.
people claim evil u.s. started "every major war". assuming vietnam is considered major... still, north vietnam... long forgotten, attacked south vietnam who begd its ally for help. u.s. "saved them" by performing violence for a different goal than the violence of the north vietnam: to take the land and control the people under communism with no choices of leaders only one political group. no options.
what about world war 2? was that a major war? certainly... did the u.s. start it? truth is u.s. was nutral for two years. yet "quora" hosts questions that contain accusations "why did u.s. start every major war in the 1900's" is quora a source for information? now we know certainly not a qualified source. why not? before asking why we must ask if? "did u.s. start etc.?" nope. u.s. was nutral in BOTH of the major wars in the 1900's. u.s. ENDED the war by dropping an atom bomb on japan... when one was NOT enough to end the war... we all saw in action... the day after the bomb, still emperor of japan refused to end the war so needed more atomic bombs... only after soviets violated a treaty and invaded the "south amur river region: called manchu... then japanese emperor surrendered, nobody else in japanese military could surrender... even if they wanted to kuz the emperor was the shintto god. and even if the navy wanted to surrender stilll must obey emperor.
after saw one atomic bomb was not enough to end the war so needed a second and needed soviets to violate a treaty... the "means" seemd evil "violating a treaty" but still the "exception" like the exception of the red-light rule, was for the "ends the end goal" to stop the war when people shot at each other... usualy bad to violate a treaty but at the time people were shooting at each other therefore the ends did justify the means of violating a treaty to save both: the lives of those that the japs shot at, as well as the jap soldiers who did not die in battle... as they wanted for their shinto ideas.
;){kind=link}