From: Edmund Grech (edmund@arclightentertainment.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 12:10:04 MDT
The reasoning in this matter of being pro active to the point of executing
the opposition in order to further a just and noble cause is similar in some
ways to the concept of a death penalty for criminals.
To pass judgement one must first obtain the moral highground. Any cause will
be considered to provide this by its members. This achieved, the group in
question be it an extreemist movement or indeed a court of law will if it
desires extend this to include the right of confiscating life. In the case
of an extreemist movement this is unacceptable, in a court it is a debated
issue but still the same question:
Do we have a right to confiscate life to promote our ideology?
The answer is determined by the majority; but this does not alter the ethics
involved. Of course we all subscribe to different sets of ethical, moral,
and religous guidlines some mainstream some not. But no matter what you
believe it is my opinion; and I personally take my lead from the UN bill of
Human Rights, that as soon as you are prepared to kill in order to promote
one's own point of view any possible claim of superiority is lost. Is it
right to murder the murderers?
To return to the point should modern day fascists be killed by the liberal
democratic world? Or anti-progress groups by Extropians? (and I stress I
don't intend to suggest anti-progressionists are fascists). If the answer
for you is in the affirmative then consider that by reverse argument, it is
right for fascists or in this case anti-progressionists to kill you. I think
a war started that way that cost 100 Million lives. I'd rather live in a
world with what I perceive to be unsavoury ideology and the people
proffessing it; than start violence simply to remove an aspect of society
that offends my sensibilities or my ethics.
Edmund
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST