20 Years ago...

UnderseaLcpl · 06-04-09, 02:33 PM

I think I see what Letum is saying. A massacre cannot and should not be compared to a different massacre to determine which was "more" atrocious. It sets a benchmark by which some killings are made less detestable, whereas we should focus on the fact that they are all equally despicable from a moral standpoint.
Is that close?

In the meantime, I tend to side with Sky in the view that 2 lives are worth more than one life, generally speaking. I think that is an appropriate method of guaging the severity of an atrocity, so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that such acts are violations of fundamental human rights.
There are other factors that must be considered as well. It is one thing to be unarmed and gunned down in the midst of a protest or demonstration. It is quite another to be imprisoned, lined up against a wall, and shot. It is yet another thing to be imprisoned for nothing, tortured into confession, and sent to a forced labor camp to die a slow death due to malnourishment and exposure. That was a favorite Soviet trick, amongst others.

In conclusion, I think the type of atrocity and the scale on which it occurred does matter. As long as we maintain awareness of fundamental human rights violations, rather than just numbers, the most horrible acts will become less and less prevalent, just as they have in the Western world. We're suffering such a dearth of atrocities at the moment that we have to look elsewhere to find some, or harp endlessly on pansy-torture like what went on at Guantanamo.

nikimcbee · 06-04-09, 03:12 PM

PBS Frontline did a show a while back on what ever happened to the man infront of the tank.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/

Letum · 06-04-09, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I think I see what Letum is saying. A massacre cannot and should not be compared to a different massacre to determine which was "more" atrocious. It sets a benchmark by which some killings are made less detestable, whereas we should focus on the fact that they are all equally despicable from a moral standpoint.
Is that close?

Whilst I also agree with this to some lesser extent, it isn't the angle I was
coming from at all.
I don't think the stance you lay out holds a lot of water.

UnderseaLcpl · 06-05-09, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Whilst I also agree with this to some lesser extent, it isn't the angle I was
coming from at all.
I don't think the stance you lay out holds a lot of water.

I guess I didn't understand you, then. I was trying to put my position in terms of what I thought was your position.

After reading your most recent posts, I still don't understand it, but it seems heartless and simplistic, if you will forgive my brusqueness.

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own species, I will ask Sky to explain/debate the genetic causality of such sympathy, something I have been meaning to do for some time now, before I was distracted by the Were-fish game.

(Speaking of which, I forgot to thank you for that, so thanks. It was a lot of fun.

)

Skybird · 06-05-09, 05:08 AM

As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place. Because only when you assume the tragedy had not taken place, you can not compare scale and quality of two such events. If there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, how can the tragedy be any greater, you said. But that we still can know of events unfolding somewhere in the world, without us being directly affected, and that we still can compare the two to each other in scale, size, quality - that you do ignore. Even worse, your conclucison of "if nobody hears the sound, the sound is noiseless" can be truned against you. I misery or drama I cause and do not take note of, is as well as non-existing/unimportant/unassessable. That way somebody driving a car and overtaking another car so dangerously that the other drives in shock drives off the road, against a tree and gets killed along with the whole family in the car, and the first driver not seeing it in the mirror and driving on and away - well, according to you that is no tragedy/drama. One could even use your argument to claim that if the fikrst driver get caught, he should not be held repsnsible, since it is highly questionable that he has casued somethign that could be judged or evaluated by standards that would allow to hold him responsible.

Or WWI and WWII. According to you, once the last survivors and their offsprings have died in the near future, and no witnesses lives anymore, according to your logic we could not compare the consequences and different death tolls between the two anymore. Because they do not mean any drama for us anymore, they are not affecting us directly.

A tragedy unfolding in the world somewhere today - how could it be a tragedy if we simply refsue to take note of it? Or to refer to the UN: if we ignore the genocide in Darfhur, how could it be a genocide, then?

So, I think you are not only a lil' bit lifted-off, and absurd, but also dangerous, considering the consequences you invite. Or in the aid-convoy example I referred to, there were guys in command who obviously also refused to compare two situations. That'S why they stayed and wasted time for so long, and probably caused the dying of many more people elsewhere for they alolowed their trucks to be locked down for so long. they wanted to avoid the smaller tragedy, and by that allowed a greater tragedy happening. Because they did not weigh and compare.

Not judging and noit commenting, is nice for mediation and buddhist ideology. But in everyday life, we need to assess, evaluate and judge things, make decisions for options and decide against other options by that, and accept the consequences we cause. We must not always be emotionally aroused when doing so, that is positive, but that does not mean we do not differ between the different amounts of suffering in two different events of drama, desaster or tragedy. We cannot escape to do so, even more if we have the intention to get engaged. And if the things already took place a,ng time agi in the past, we still can - and do - compare them.

You make it very complicated, Letum, which would be okay if you would gain anything from it. But you gain nothing from it.

Keep it simple, then.

Letum · 06-05-09, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place.

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:

Quote:

1. For something to be more or less bad, there must be someone for whom it is more or less bad.
2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
3. Therefor a larger massacre is no more or less bad then a smaller one.

It can be demonstrated as valid:

Quote:

1. For X to be true, there must be someone for whom X is true.
2. In the event of Y, there is no one for whom X is true.
3. Therefor, in the event of Y, X is not true.

Where X is somethings ability to be more or less bad
And Y is a massacre

I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

Letum · 06-05-09, 09:41 AM

Quote:

[...]it seems heartless and simplistic

Hehe....SB accuses me of not being simple enough, you of me being too simple.
I don't think it is heartless at all. It does not lessen the magnitude of suffering.

Quote:

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own
species[...]

My approach is not less emphatic in any way so far as I can see, although
that is, of course, a matter of opinion. I am personally very much
tormented by the multitude of suffering that takes place daily. I don't think
anyone who could see within me could accuse me of lacking empathic
sentiment.

Skybird · 06-05-09, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:

It can be demonstrated as valid:

I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

That is upmost absurd what you say. The events you now even try to press into a formula, have always somebody for whom they are true: for example us while we talk about them and be aware of them having taken place. We see them, we value them, and we conclude which one if the greater tragedy when comporing numbers. we could eventually also use other standards, too, but comparing we do, and then come to a statement saying this or that is the greater tragedy. that does not need any epistemology, no X and no Y, no goats and no farmers.

Man, get real again, for your own sake! You really make me feel worried for the mental representation of the world you seem to spend your Second Life in. You try to outline twists and complexities that simply are not there.

Okay, it seems nobody of us seems to get through to you. For my own part, I leave it here.

Tip: read Marc Aurel. A good remedy against excessive thinking and a hyperactive intellect that hijacks people's minds. As I said before, I don't think you are stupid, Letum, quite the oppposite: you are too smart.

Letum · 06-05-09, 11:49 AM

If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough.
You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of
the premises or conclusions I make.

"excessive thinking" indeed!

What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life?

Aramike · 06-05-09, 11:53 AM

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

The good news is that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't even try. In fact, even the US War Department saw it differently, as indicated by the Sole Survivor policy instated after the Sullivan brothers tragedy.

Skybird · 06-04-09, 03:17 PM

It comes down to this: if you are in a situation where you must decide on who lives and why dies, and you have two groups and can only help one of them, by which standards do you decide? Or do you reject to decide at all, saying that it all is so sad and tragic that you lack the words to describe it, or that the fate of each single group is so dramatic that it always equals that of the other group anyway?

I once gave the example of aid going into one war or desaster zone, and the aid was refused by local villagers saying that for religious reasons they could not come down from their damn hill and help unloading the trucks. The truclkdrivers were not able to do it all by themselves and carry it up to them piece by piece, and why should they. The commander of that truck column decided to stay in place and trying to negotiate with them, although at that timne trucks were in short supply and were desperately needed. They staye don the scene for 12 hours I think.

I took fire back then when saying they should not have stayed, but drive the goods to the next village, unload at the next opporutnity where their help was welcomed, return to the camp and get the next transport rolling. While they stayd in that rleigous village, there trucks were almost non-existent. People died becasue the aid they could have transported, did not reach themn, for these trucks were missing. I was attacked for that, asking me how I could decide to let the religious villagers on that hill possibly die, to help other villagers somewhere else, and how I could dare to say the life of the ones is more worth than the life of the others.

But that never was the point to me. The point is that for me - for us - it makes no difference wether the ones or the others die. I decided the issue on the basis of simple math. Shoiuld many peopöle die just to allow the few to live? Eventually I considered that the few in this case were incredibly stupid primitives. Eventually. but I did not compare the value of lives. I opted for what would have caused the lesser death toll. why I was attacked for that in that discussion, escapes my understanding. It also escapes my ethical standards.

Sometimes things are simple. They must not be made more complicated than they are.

Indeed, they often are simple. and indeed me artificially make them complicated. Because most of the time we do not dare to accept them in their simple essence, then we need much time to admit them to ourselves.

Letum · 06-04-09, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

It comes down to this: if you are in a situation where you must decide on who lives and why dies, and you have two groups and can only help one of them, by which standards do you decide?

That is another 'either one scenario, or the other' case.
You should choose the lesser. The lesser would be least bad.

If both scenarios have already taken place, interdependently of each other,
then it is not an 'either-or' case and there is no longer anyone for whom
either scenario was any better or worse than the other.

I will try to give another example:

Lets say two farmers have 10 goats each. Additionally, there are two herds
of wild goats; each heard comprising of 10 goats.

The area floods.

One farm loses 8 goats, one 4 goats.
One heard of wild goats loses 8 goats, the other 4.

For the goats on the farm, it is clear that we can say that the loss of 8 is
worse because the farmer has lost more. The farmer is the point of view from
which one of the losses is the greater.

However, the wild goats have no farmer.
None of the surviving wild goats is any worse off than any other surviving wild
goats and none of the dead wild goats is any worse off than any of the other
dead wild goats. Both goat-losses are bad because each dead goat has lost
out, but there is no goat, dead or alive, for which the events in either group
was better or worse.

No dead goat in the group that lost 8 goats has lost any more than any given
dead goat in the group that lost 4.
Likewise, no surviving goat in the group that lost 8 goats has lost any more
than any given surviving goat in the group that lost 4.

If we postulate the existence of an observing goat belonging to neither herd,
it has not lost or gain anything at all from either event.

Aramike · 06-04-09, 04:21 PM

But when you're talking about the loss of life in the perspective of the human race, then we must use the term "magnitude" as a qualifier.

Not all tragedies are the same and I have to agree with Skybird 100% here. Your analogy makes little sense, considering that we're not talking about the substance from the perspective of an individual. Rather, approaching the situation as a whole, the greater tragedy would be the one with the greater loss.

Letum · 06-04-09, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

the greater tragedy would be the one with the greater loss.

For whom is it a greater tradgedy?

Aramike · 06-04-09, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

For whom is it a greater tradgedy?

But that's never been the question, has it?

On the scale of the human race the greater tragedy would be the greater loss of life. It is impossible (an unwise) for any of us to reduce our perspective to that of the individuals affected, as it would clearly cloud our judgement.

For instance, to the widow the tragic pain of the loss of her husband has little to do with defining the circumstances leading to that loss.

The word "tragedy", and similar words, are completely based upon the context in which they are being used. When being used in the context of lives lost, the greater tragedy will be the one with the greater loss of life. You're attempting to assert that the word "tragedy" cannot be reconciled with a word describing magnitude, but the fact is that it can.

Language is used to describe and communicate concepts. If someone says that the loss of 2 million people is a greater tragedy than the loss of 2 thousand, that would be an accurate description.

That description has nothing to do with the impact to the individuals, mind you - it merely is based upon this forumla:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.
2 Million > 2 thousand

As such, the loss of 2 million human lives is a greater tragedy then the loss of 2 thousand.

06-04-09, 02:33 PM	#1
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think I see what Letum is saying. A massacre cannot and should not be compared to a different massacre to determine which was "more" atrocious. It sets a benchmark by which some killings are made less detestable, whereas we should focus on the fact that they are all equally despicable from a moral standpoint. Is that close? In the meantime, I tend to side with Sky in the view that 2 lives are worth more than one life, generally speaking. I think that is an appropriate method of guaging the severity of an atrocity, so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that such acts are violations of fundamental human rights. There are other factors that must be considered as well. It is one thing to be unarmed and gunned down in the midst of a protest or demonstration. It is quite another to be imprisoned, lined up against a wall, and shot. It is yet another thing to be imprisoned for nothing, tortured into confession, and sent to a forced labor camp to die a slow death due to malnourishment and exposure. That was a favorite Soviet trick, amongst others. In conclusion, I think the type of atrocity and the scale on which it occurred does matter. As long as we maintain awareness of fundamental human rights violations, rather than just numbers, the most horrible acts will become less and less prevalent, just as they have in the Western world. We're suffering such a dearth of atrocities at the moment that we have to look elsewhere to find some, or harp endlessly on pansy-torture like what went on at Guantanamo. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

06-04-09, 03:12 PM	#2
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	PBS Frontline did a show a while back on what ever happened to the man infront of the tank. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/ __________________

06-05-09, 05:08 AM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,643 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place. Because only when you assume the tragedy had not taken place, you can not compare scale and quality of two such events. If there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, how can the tragedy be any greater, you said. But that we still can know of events unfolding somewhere in the world, without us being directly affected, and that we still can compare the two to each other in scale, size, quality - that you do ignore. Even worse, your conclucison of "if nobody hears the sound, the sound is noiseless" can be truned against you. I misery or drama I cause and do not take note of, is as well as non-existing/unimportant/unassessable. That way somebody driving a car and overtaking another car so dangerously that the other drives in shock drives off the road, against a tree and gets killed along with the whole family in the car, and the first driver not seeing it in the mirror and driving on and away - well, according to you that is no tragedy/drama. One could even use your argument to claim that if the fikrst driver get caught, he should not be held repsnsible, since it is highly questionable that he has casued somethign that could be judged or evaluated by standards that would allow to hold him responsible. Or WWI and WWII. According to you, once the last survivors and their offsprings have died in the near future, and no witnesses lives anymore, according to your logic we could not compare the consequences and different death tolls between the two anymore. Because they do not mean any drama for us anymore, they are not affecting us directly. A tragedy unfolding in the world somewhere today - how could it be a tragedy if we simply refsue to take note of it? Or to refer to the UN: if we ignore the genocide in Darfhur, how could it be a genocide, then? So, I think you are not only a lil' bit lifted-off, and absurd, but also dangerous, considering the consequences you invite. Or in the aid-convoy example I referred to, there were guys in command who obviously also refused to compare two situations. That'S why they stayed and wasted time for so long, and probably caused the dying of many more people elsewhere for they alolowed their trucks to be locked down for so long. they wanted to avoid the smaller tragedy, and by that allowed a greater tragedy happening. Because they did not weigh and compare. Not judging and noit commenting, is nice for mediation and buddhist ideology. But in everyday life, we need to assess, evaluate and judge things, make decisions for options and decide against other options by that, and accept the consequences we cause. We must not always be emotionally aroused when doing so, that is positive, but that does not mean we do not differ between the different amounts of suffering in two different events of drama, desaster or tragedy. We cannot escape to do so, even more if we have the intention to get engaged. And if the things already took place a,ng time agi in the past, we still can - and do - compare them. You make it very complicated, Letum, which would be okay if you would gain anything from it. But you gain nothing from it. Keep it simple, then. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-05-09, 11:49 AM	#9
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough. You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of the premises or conclusions I make. "excessive thinking" indeed! What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life? __________________

06-04-09, 03:17 PM	#11
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,643 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It comes down to this: if you are in a situation where you must decide on who lives and why dies, and you have two groups and can only help one of them, by which standards do you decide? Or do you reject to decide at all, saying that it all is so sad and tragic that you lack the words to describe it, or that the fate of each single group is so dramatic that it always equals that of the other group anyway? I once gave the example of aid going into one war or desaster zone, and the aid was refused by local villagers saying that for religious reasons they could not come down from their damn hill and help unloading the trucks. The truclkdrivers were not able to do it all by themselves and carry it up to them piece by piece, and why should they. The commander of that truck column decided to stay in place and trying to negotiate with them, although at that timne trucks were in short supply and were desperately needed. They staye don the scene for 12 hours I think. I took fire back then when saying they should not have stayed, but drive the goods to the next village, unload at the next opporutnity where their help was welcomed, return to the camp and get the next transport rolling. While they stayd in that rleigous village, there trucks were almost non-existent. People died becasue the aid they could have transported, did not reach themn, for these trucks were missing. I was attacked for that, asking me how I could decide to let the religious villagers on that hill possibly die, to help other villagers somewhere else, and how I could dare to say the life of the ones is more worth than the life of the others. But that never was the point to me. The point is that for me - for us - it makes no difference wether the ones or the others die. I decided the issue on the basis of simple math. Shoiuld many peopöle die just to allow the few to live? Eventually I considered that the few in this case were incredibly stupid primitives. Eventually. but I did not compare the value of lives. I opted for what would have caused the lesser death toll. why I was attacked for that in that discussion, escapes my understanding. It also escapes my ethical standards. Sometimes things are simple. They must not be made more complicated than they are. Indeed, they often are simple. and indeed me artificially make them complicated. Because most of the time we do not dare to accept them in their simple essence, then we need much time to admit them to ourselves. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-05-09, 11:53 AM	#10
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five. How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic? The good news is that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't even try. In fact, even the US War Department saw it differently, as indicated by the Sole Survivor policy instated after the Sullivan brothers tragedy.

06-04-09, 04:21 PM	#13
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	But when you're talking about the loss of life in the perspective of the human race, then we must use the term "magnitude" as a qualifier. Not all tragedies are the same and I have to agree with Skybird 100% here. Your analogy makes little sense, considering that we're not talking about the substance from the perspective of an individual. Rather, approaching the situation as a whole, the greater tragedy would be the one with the greater loss.