In the early 20th century there was widespread public acceptance of the eugenics movement across the world. Apparently in the 20's the high-school & college texts talked about the immense benefits to be had by applying eugenic principles to the population. Of course after the war, or probably somewhere during it, it lost favour in both political and scientific places. The eugenics scene is slowly resurfacing afraid of any prejudices it might have to endure in light of its somewhat dark (if not colourful) history. The eyebrows it raises are ethical/moral as well as scientific. But that is not the part i want to expand upon. I don't know enough to stare back at the scientific eyebrows and don't agree enough with the moral ones.
The holocaust is estimated to have claimed 17 million human lives. in a span of 4 years. People killed in open air shootings, ghettos, camps and other such terrifying ways. It was a state initiated - sponsored and engineered operation carried out as a solution to, what they concurred to be, a national/universal problem. This was carried out without much public resistance from the subjects of the state. The public opinion on this solution, apparently ranged from indifference/passive complicity to acknowledgement.
Here is what i'm getting at. We say the pain of war is sometimes necessary for upholding values like freedom. We give moral justifications to questionable actions all the time. The "ends" some times call for unthinkable "means". Just as long as your ends are white enough. We go through war killing men, justified by a notion of superior ideas. My problem isn't really with war, or men killing men or even with having a notion that your idea is superior to mine. The problem is when you justify murder for your idea and then proceed to glorify it, but you disapprove of/scowl at/frown upon/admonish/castigate and condemn your enemy for the same. It doesn't seem to be as much about the superior idea as the superior guy. I'm not getting at the hypocrisy of the act (which it could be) but at the seemingly gaping discord between the rules we set and the rules we follow ourselves.
The holocaust is estimated to have claimed 17 million human lives. in a span of 4 years. People killed in open air shootings, ghettos, camps and other such terrifying ways. It was a state initiated - sponsored and engineered operation carried out as a solution to, what they concurred to be, a national/universal problem. This was carried out without much public resistance from the subjects of the state. The public opinion on this solution, apparently ranged from indifference/passive complicity to acknowledgement.
Here is what i'm getting at. We say the pain of war is sometimes necessary for upholding values like freedom. We give moral justifications to questionable actions all the time. The "ends" some times call for unthinkable "means". Just as long as your ends are white enough. We go through war killing men, justified by a notion of superior ideas. My problem isn't really with war, or men killing men or even with having a notion that your idea is superior to mine. The problem is when you justify murder for your idea and then proceed to glorify it, but you disapprove of/scowl at/frown upon/admonish/castigate and condemn your enemy for the same. It doesn't seem to be as much about the superior idea as the superior guy. I'm not getting at the hypocrisy of the act (which it could be) but at the seemingly gaping discord between the rules we set and the rules we follow ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment