Are human beings inescapably selfish?
This is the question I'm left with when I consider parts of "The Fog of War." Now, I've already formed my (amendable) opinion on this matter, but it's a subject that's always interesting to ponder and discuss when presented in a new scenario. The scenario in "The Fog of War" is the phenomenon that makes war possible in the first place: the view that the lives of the "enemy" are worth less than the lives of one's own people.
Many people would eschew this idea immediately as obviously false and offensive. Yet, I insist that most of the people I have encountered have exhibited this point of view in some way. For instance, there is no great outcry against the fact that most major news networks emphasize the number of American lives lost in Iraq, whereas one must do investigative research to find the number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been killed in the war.
We all profess humanitarian viewpoints; we are all "modern;" I doubt any of us would openly claim to be racist and just as few of us would say the value of one's life is determined by something as arbitrary as nationality. Still, actions speak louder than words. Our society has produced no great uprising over war crimes and tortures exacted upon foreigners. Even its "discontent" is never spontaneous or public--it must be ferreted out by reporters who have to actually interview people to find out whether or not they agree with the current wars or actions committed by the leaders.
Is this because we're untouched by the conflict? Is it telling that the economy is creating enormous ripples whereas only murmurs were heard about wars costing tens of thousands of foreign lives? Once the economy went in the dumpster--once American interests were actually being affected--it instantly jumped to the top of citizens' priority lists (at least, according to the pollsters). Isn't life itself more important than wealth? The message in the numbers seems to be no, at least when the life threatened exists across the globe while the HDTV you were planning to buy with the next bonus check is sitting in a store right across the street.
My question is not whether I think this perspective is right--my tone makes my opinion obvious--my question is, is it inevitable? If you have an opinion, don't hog it to yourself (unless you want to symbolically support the "selfishness is inevitable" thesis). Let the rest of us know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dave, s much as I wish I could argue with your conclusions about the nature of war as diminishing the value of one's enemy's life, I have to agree whole heartedly. I thought your comparison of the national response to the wars our country fights in and that of our struggling economy a particularly compelling illustration of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, I do think this is inevitable because in order to fight against another, we must decide that our cause is worth more than the life of that individual. As soon as we are put in a position to use lethal force against another people, we automatically see them as 'enemies' before we see them as human beings.
ReplyDeleteI thought about this very scenario today as I was reading an article on the CNN website about Omar Khadr, a controversial Guatanamo prisoner who has been in the media spotlight on and off over the past few years. Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured and detained in Afghanistan. Now 22, he remains the youngest prisoner at Gitmo and, as a Canadian citizen, the only Westerner. He was allegedly caught on surveillance planting bombs in places where U.S. troops often traveled, although the Pentagon refuses to release this footage. He is charged with "war crimes including murder, spying, conspiracy and providing support to terrorism" (cnn.com). If we were a member of an external, impartial entity, we as a society would certainly see such treatment of a minor a horrible violation of human dignity.
We would also recognize that the crimes that Khadr is charged with are actions that a U.S. soldier would be praised for performing. Planting bombs to kill enemy troops does not violate any of the moral standards we have discussed for a just war. Of course it is wrong to kill, but it is also the purpose of war. In the film, Robert McNamara quoted someone who said that if we had lost World War II, many Americans would be charged with war crimes. This seems to be a convincing point. I have just finished reading about the case study of the atom bombs in World War II. According to the standards for a just war, the premeditated, deliberate killing of shocking number of civilians in order to scare a government into surrendering is obviously immoral, and would even be defined as terrorism. Just as obviously, the indefinite detention, sleep deprivation, etc. of a minor 15-year-old would clearly be identified as immoral. However, we justify these activities--and even go so far as to label the minor a war criminal--because we view our adversaries as less than human beings. In a world run by morals--if war existed, which of course it wouldn't--'war crimes' would be defined as those that violate the principles of discrimination and propotionality. However, in a world run by politics, 'war crimes' are defined by the winners and have very little to do with what is right and what is wrong.
The idea that the lives of the "enemy" are worth less than the lives of one's own people is a very interesting topic and I’m glad that you addressed it. When I read that statement, I like many people immediately disagree. I see your point Dave in saying that we often claim to have humanitarian viewpoints but I think that you are underestimating public care for the “foreigners.” I feel like there is a large number of people who are aware of how biased our media is and would make more noise about how terrible our war crimes have been but I think we need to consider two things before we can jump to the conclusion that our actions prove that we don’t really care about “the enemy.” First of all, we need to remember the administration that we have been under for the last 8 years and what it was like. We all experienced it, and all know how especially towards the end of Bush’s term, a lot of people really lost faith in government and the idea that their opinions could impact policy. I think that a lot of people were disheartened in their efforts to “be heard” and to speak up against all of the wrongs that we were committing in a war that so many disagree with. We can see a lot of this energy built up in this last election when so many people came together and cried out for change. I think just because not a lot of outcry was seen doesn’t mean that it wasn’t thought of or that the people care any less, which brings me to my second point. Our media IS biased (like you said) and therefore how can we fairly say that Americans don’t care about what torture and war crimes we are committing when we aren’t even necessarily seeing the action in an accurate light? If we heard more about how many Iraqi soldiers were being killed or tortured then I think we would be crying out a lot more than we are. Also if the media used rhetoric that would actually personalize what happens in a war (calling them “Iraqi people” as opposed to “insurgents,”) we then maybe would realize what terrible acts are really occurring. But this would take away from the reinforced nationalism that we get from all areas of our culture.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it is that we get our seeming bias of us over the “enemy” from our culture. We are taught at young ages to be loyal to our country (eg learning the pledge in first grade) and we see in story after story that it is us versus them. For the government, this is a great tool because it keeps stability and assures that we will have people who will fight wars on behalf of our country if we need to. I think if we got rid of that us versus them dichotomy and rhetoric that views other parts of the world as so different and unusual that we may care enough for each other that empathy could play a key role in our lives and that we wouldn’t consider waging a war. Instead of seeing other countries as our possible “enemies,” we could see them as people who like us are just living their lives.
"...The lives of the 'enemy' are worth less than the lives of one's own people...Many people would eschew this idea immediately as obviously false and offensive."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't. I think the idea that we view the other side as worth less than us is completely valid--not in that it's right or moral, but in that it's what we do every time. War could not possibly be carried out (nor begun so lightly and so frequently) were it not for the fact that we convince ourselves that we and our country are worth more than the other side. We even convince ourselves that it becomes morally 'ok' to kill our opponents in war using the logic that they would kill us if we didn't. In a word, we 'justify.' No one is above killing another human being, and we know it, so we find ways to help ourselves sleep by turning 100,000 murders into 100,000 war casualties on the other side, in essence excusing ourselves from the deaths.
We justify our actions, renaming them and giving them higher purpose--we are fighting for what is right, and the other side obviously opposes us, so they oppose what is right, and we must fight them for their own good, as well as to maintain our freedom and safety. Surely, both sides think this way. Both sides deny fault and assert innocence (Walzer). And in the end, whoever wins gets to claim this innocence and 'right.' Military tactics and actions are what determine innocence. The closer you come to destroying the enemy, the closer to innocent you become. It's almost as ridiculous as valuing your lives over theirs.