[Previous entry: "The Idiotarian Amendment"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Idiotarianism, Innocence, and Evil"]
|
06/21/2003 Archived Entry: "Rachel Corrie wasn't noble" Rachel Corrie's stupidity, not the intentions of the bulldozer operater, caused her death. She died by taking a stupid action in an immoral cause. That's not noble, admirable, or deserving of sympathy. It's also not a reason to call the moral status of the IDF into question. She did something immoral in a particularly inept way, and at the cost of her life. The blood is on her hands. She, not the IDF, is comtemptible. It's terrible for someone to die, even a bad person. It's fine to feel sorry that someone died, even if that person was not very good -- but it's wrong to hold it against the people who are doing right in the world. People who consider Rachel Corrie to be a noble misguided fool rather than a bad person fail to respect her as a human being. She made choices. They were immoral as well as stupid. They got her killed, and they are still doing harm to the people on the right side of this conflict. It's terrible that she did this stupid thing that cost her life -- it's worse that the people who are fighting against evil will be blamed for her action. It's terrible that she died; it's worse that she was bad. Moral stature is not measured by strength of belief. Doing something stupid in support of a bad cause is not noble, even if it springs from a deeply held belief. The path of going to 'Palestine' to support the wrong side is worse than the path of staying home, arguing in favor of the good side, and staying out of the way of the good army. Hurting the good side is worse than doing nothing. Arguing in favor of the good side is better than doing nothing.
|
Replies: 13 comments
|
I understand demolishing houses that were being used by terrorists, but don't understand destroying wells. Posted by Leo @ 06/21/2003 08:39 PM EST I'm pretty sure that the IDF doesn't actually destroy wells, except perhaps accidentally in the course of destroying legitimate military targets. I've found some claims that this happens, but they are all on antisemitic or idiotarian pages. The overwhelming majority of those pages don't make specific claims. The closest thing to this on the IDF page is a list of false Palestinian claims which includes an instance of the Palestinians falsely accusing Israel of poisoning wells. I haven't seen any specific discussion of the IDF destroying wells that seems at all credible. Have you? Also, Rachel Corrie's death was caused by her dishonorable stupidity, and that would be true even if the Israelis did flatten wells. She died trying to protect terrorists, not trying to protect farmers. Posted by Woty @ 06/21/2003 08:40 PM EST I'm ill informed and I don't like to be involved in these issues at all, but it strikes me as odd that wars would be 'clean' nowadays when they always had senseless slaughter of people who are just trying to live their lives. Posted by Leo @ 06/21/2003 08:40 PM EST While innocent people will always likely die in the process of large-scale armed conflict, there are certainly degrees of "cleanness" that count for something, especially weighted against the potential hazards of inaction. Would it surprise you that modern surgery is so successful, given that doctors of another time used to treat people with leeches and frequent amputations? If not, why should the (relative) lack of destruction caused by today's "surgical" (hack, cough, pun) strikes come as such a shock? As technology advances, it allows us to do things more effectively and precisely. This is as true when it comes to the art of saving lives as it is with the art of taking them. Posted by Justin @ 06/21/2003 08:41 PM EST I don't think war is clean. I think war is dirty, horrible, and ugly. However, the IDF is fighting for a just cause, and they are engaged in doing it as cleanly as possible. The people they are fighting do not have the same attitude, and they are not fighting for something good. Rachel Corrie died trying to protect a terrorist smuggling tunnel that made it easier for evil people to kill innocent people. There is nothing good or noble about that. Fighting in defense of a good country is a completely different act. Posted by Woty @ 06/21/2003 08:41 PM EST Justin -- As determinants of how warfare is conducted, I think that improvements in technology are a factor, but the key factor is improvements in morality. We have used computer and satellite technology recently to reduce civilian casualties, but we could equally well have used it to increase them if we had preferred. Our enemies do exactly that. And when the Israelis at the battle of Jenin chose to sacrifice their own soldiers' lives to save enemy civilians, they did it by deliberately *not* using higher technology but by using special tactics that would have already been available in World War 2 -- if anyone at the time had considered that the right thing to do. Posted by David Deutsch @ 06/21/2003 08:42 PM EST Please note that all comments prior to this one have been carried over from my old site and that accordingly the dates are incorrect. |