Posted by iris in
"I open books on law and ethics and listen to the scholars and legal experts. Permeated with their persuasive talk. I admire the peace and justice established by the civil order, bless the wisdom of public institutions. Well versed in my duties and happiness, I shut my book, leave the classroom and look around me. I see unfortunate nations groaning under yokes of iron, the human race crushed by a handful of oppressors, a starving crowd overwhelmed with pain and hunger ... and everywhere the strong armed against the weak with the power of law ... I raise my eyes and look into the distance. I see fires and flames, the countryside deserted, towns pillaged ... I hear a terrible sound; what an uproar. I draw near; I see a scene of murder, ten thousand butchered men, the dead piled in heaps, the dying trampled under horses’ hooves, everywhere the face of death and agony ... so this is the fruit of those peaceful institutions. Barbarous philosopher! Come and read us your book on the field of battle"
Monthly Popular
All time Most Popular Posts
Quote of the day
8 Response to Rousseau quote
Very true!
But I guess its all about a balance. The yin and yang will always exist. The scholars and philosophers will lecture about the ideal and the institutions will preach about trying to make the world a better and peaceful place and in many instances they will actively drive to achieve that.
But on the other hand you will always have people who are corrupt, greedy, driven by their own personal interests, resulting in 'nations groaning under yokes of iron, the human race crushed by a handful of oppressors, a starving crowd overwhelmed with pain and hunger'.
I dont want to sound pessimistic but I think this will always be the case. And as individuals all we can do concsiously or unconsiously is pick a side. And if we decide to make the world a better place then I believe that by using the ethics from the philosophers and by filling the gaps where the public institutions have failed, we can make things a little bit better. But unfortunately never eliminate all 'the face of death and agony'.
@ Iris
Bravo sou.
You are years ahead of your generation. Does that make you older?
Saddly no..
@ Andreas P
So when your neighbour was beating his child you calmly said: oh, there will always be people who hit their children. Or you picked a side which condemned the neighbour's behaviour?
I am afraid you need to break the door in drag the neighbour outside break his arm and make him realise that next time he beats his child his other arm is on the line.
Remember: The neighbour did not just threaten his child. He was beating it with his fist.
"The world is a dangerous place to live. Not because of those who do evil but because of those who sit by and let it happen"
Albert Einstein
@ Anonymous
The U.S.A. is one of the ideal places where social experiments can be and have been contacted directly or indirectly because of its structure. So, the course of action you suggest that in my understanding follows capital punishment doesn't have supporting evidence but in the contrary. In the following link you can see that not only there is no positive correlation between murder rate and capital punishment but actually a negative one.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
I am not sure whether a state of anarchy is the answer an I am sure that this was not in Einstein's mind when he claimed what you quoted.
@ Christos P
Did I kill the neighbour or firmly warned him?
Do you get any sense of symbolism in my words i.e. the 'neighbour' represents a certain group?
By state of anarchy do you mean everything that Rousseau describes in Iris's post? Or the efforts to change the above situation?
I will leave you with these for the moment, so I get a better picture of your advocacy and then maybe I ll try to explain my comment.
@Anonymous
If your warning to the neighbour is an act of violence then where do you draw the line between good and evil. Is your act of violence good because your objective was a moral one? Do the ends justify the means? For example, can America intervene in any country that contains 'terrorists' because it is for the greater good?
I think we need to be careful in the way we intervene to save the child you've mentioned. Yes I agree that we need to do something about it and although some people will just dont care, we need to influence as many people as we can ta act in breaking the neighbour's door and saving the child.
But I'm not sure about breaking the neighbour's arm. I think you can change the world in other ways.
“There is no road towards peace; peace is the road” Mahatma Gandhi Indian leader, internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest, 1869-1948
So I think that there are
@ Andreas P
Those who would break the door will have no dilemma if their actions would be justified at court or not. America calls someone a terrorist, kills them and takes their oil. The rest call America a terrorist and stop its actions. The issue here is to halt the current world order which passively watches the butchering of children and communities. Do you have any dilemmas why the USA is in Iraq or Afghanistan? So why are you looking for ones?
Anyway do not take this as a personal attack, far from it. We both agree violence and war are the lowest humanity can fell to.
Imagine if you were the advocate of the USA. Would there be a better thing to say than: I think you can change the world in other ways “There is no road towards peace; peace is the road” Mahatma Gandhi Indian leader, internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest (per you). And the same time butchering for your interests.
The Gandhi example is for many reasons overrated. The Colonial Empire was anyway abandoning its colonies and the problems that it created in Pakistan/India/Kashmir, the poverty in those countries nowadays, the unacceptable social political and economical situation today (few rich/ many poor) shows that what they wanted from the area they have it. A peaceful transition is what the colonists wanted. Do not tell me in other small countries they were hanging 18 year old boys and in the rich lands of India they failed with Ghandi. They could easily assassinate him or legally hang him. What is the situation in India or Pakistan today?
Our teachers always speak for Gandhi but never for Nazim Hikmet’s ‘Benerjee of Calcutta’.
@ Anonymous
By state of anarchy I mean a world where everyone of us by his/her own definition of right or wrong will proceed in taking actions, and rather violent ones by what you stated:
I am afraid you need to break the door in drag the neighbour outside break his arm and make him realise that next time he beats his child his other arm is on the line.
Each individual has a different perception of right and wrong so yes, in my understanding your comment on how to face these issues i.e taking violence into a personal level because of the possibility that the court of law is inadequate to tackle them is indeed promoting a state of anarchy. I really would not like living in a world where everyone would enforce order on what he seems to believe is right or wrong.
This is what I meant. I hope it is clearer now
Post a Comment