When it comes to war, both sides have signed an invincible contract to death. It goes without saying that the possibility of death is very high. It's a kind of a mutual consensus. With both sides holding a weapon against each other, they are in a somewhat equal footing. However, when one side is defenceless, what could condone the one holding a weapon against them? The Ankara attacks is such a huge blow to humanity. When one is calling for peace by using peaceful mean, no matter how
much disagreement the other side holds, it shouldn't end this way. And it makes us wonder what kind of people the bombers are to be able to plan this heartless action. Are they now celebrating their victory over blood, tears, and lives of the loss? What kind of belief are they holding for such a conduct? And it makes me wonder if it's that easy to take away lives. An innocent life of people we do not know.
much disagreement the other side holds, it shouldn't end this way. And it makes us wonder what kind of people the bombers are to be able to plan this heartless action. Are they now celebrating their victory over blood, tears, and lives of the loss? What kind of belief are they holding for such a conduct? And it makes me wonder if it's that easy to take away lives. An innocent life of people we do not know.
_______________________________________
My question is: Do you think you can kill a stranger on a street without remorse?
___________
Reference
To me, there is no reason to kill a stranger on a street if I am not suffering from mental illness (case 1) or that stranger who are normal but hired from others or even abnormal is trying to kill me (case 2) with any reasons. Besides defensing my life, I would say I cannot kill him/her who is making me severely injured. Actually, I might not kill him/her always to save my life unless I fight against him/her with a gun or a knife under panic and chaos.
ReplyDeleteSo, in the extreme case like I mentioned above, if I am able to kill him/her with such a reason, I would regret or be filled with remorse for case 1 when I get well from mental disorder.
On the other hand, I would not regret or be filled with remorse for case 2 because I must protect my life from others being killing me.
The beliefs that motivate people to commit these atrocities seem to me to be usually very strong political or religious beliefs - people might steal because they are hungry or greedy, and they might be corrupt for similar reasons, but they don't tend to engage in acts of terrorism or mass killing except for religion and politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd perfectly normal, usually decent people, can easily let themselves be led into the evil beliefs: I remember when I was very young listening to my parents, aunts and uncles one day as they talked about the communist threat: it sounded like they would be happy to round and kill communists. The truth was that there was no such threat, and in fact my closest relatives really didn't know what they were talking about as they pushed each other to an emotional high, and that sort of irrational delusion did lead to some very nasty acts against people who were, or were thought to be, communist.
The lesson I learned was that everything, absolutely everything and most especially strongly held religious, political and social beliefs must be open to questioning by strong legal protection for free speech - if we cannot question some topic or belief, then our beliefs about that topic cannot be well-founded and are very likely false. This is why religions love to protect themselves with laws against blasphemy, criticism, heresy and so on. And that is morally wrong. The ignorance and untested opinion that comes from censorship is unhealthy and can lead easily to more murderous human rights abuses, such as terrorist bombing and locking citizens away in prison for decades on end merely because they spoke an honestly held opinion that was socially unpopular for political or religious reasons.
And now my coffee is getting cold!