I just saw starwars, and while it probably wasnt the intentions of good Mr Lucas, it did inspire some interesting thoughts in myself.
It led for some reason to me thinking about the second world war and the value of fighting to preserve an ideal.
Is freedom as an ideal worth a single life?
Since we don’t know how many people would have died had England and America decided not to contest Germany, what goes from here on in is merely conjecture and hypothesising but, what if less people would have died if a war was avoided and Germany given Europe? Clearly some populations would have been wiped out entirely, but does the overall preservation of life justify the total loss of minorities? What if 20 Million died fighting WW2, but 19,999,999 would have died had we not. Can we say the war was worth that single life in order to preserve values of freedom and democracy?
Also, can you say that killing minorities in cold blood in gas chambers, is ‘worse’ than ordering millions of men on either side into machine gun fire? Can you say which is a war crime? The victors of wars are never tried for war crimes, but are their atrocities of equal note?
Is using excessively destructive tactics to hold onto power or defend your country as ‘evil’ as using excessive tactics to take power? Can you say that using nerve gas to take a country is neccesarily worse than using nerve gas to defend your country? After all, what are notions of nationality anything other than simply constructs? Especially in a time where all societies are becoming more multi cultural, would there be a point anynmore of defending your nation from attack by a foreign power?
Or, does it all just come down to notions of power? Did the allies merely oppose ‘evil’ becuase it was an alternative viewpoint that was gaining power? In which case, what is power? Why is it such an important notion?
Thats alot of questions. Please feel free simply to address only one or several areas of it. But please, at least some thoughts on the issue would be good. I was effectively shunned for posting politics on my livejournal.
there is quite a difference between those who attack and those who defend…
the jews that were driven in the gas chambers were forced there. the americans and british who died in WW2 volunteered for the army, therefore assuming the risk that they might die, presumably for defending some values they believed in.
using nerve gas to defend yourself is different from using nerve gas to attack. but we must ask ourselves what atack and defense means. the japanese did attack Peral Harbour but the americans were attacking or defending themsleves when they bombed hiroshima and nagasaki?
ypu ask the question of one human live knowing the statistics. but those who fought the WW2 did not know if staying home would cost less human lives… when faced with a war, you hardly take the pencil and calculate the cost of your actions in human lifes.
after WW2 my country fell under comunism. I can see why, for a french, defetaing germany gave him/her a better future. but I’m not so sure that eastern european countries would have had a worse faith, had germany won the war.
i think that your question is valid only when there is someone else deciding how many lives should be spent for a certain end. if all those who choose to risk their lives for an end do so voluntarily, than there is no point to your question.
I think the saying “an eye for an eye” holds some significance here. If someone punches me, than I have a good, logical reason to punch them back (I want to discourage them from repeating the action, or just plain old self-defense) Its a matter of threat. If I go around punching people than the people around me are going to notice the trend, and they may feel threatend by me. If I stand around not bothering anyone, no one will have any problems with me. If someone punches me and I punch back, the only lesson will be not to punch me, not that I am a violent person and liable to cause damage to others. And also what is important to note is that the level of retaliation is important. If I shove someone and they pull out a gun and shoot me, this will be an indication to others that dealings with the person that shot are difficult, and that the person is generally uneven, and unpredictable. Thats why eye for an eye is important. If it was an arm, a leg, an ear, and an eye for an eye, than I will raise the threat levels of others around me.