Comments on What Is More Important, PEACE or JUSTICE?

Go to The Philosophy of Peace - Add a comment - Go to What Is More Important, PEACE or JUSTICE?

Carpenter

Thanks for reading, and I am glad you enjoyed it.

posted by GoldenMean on December 5, 2004 at 9:58 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean

This is a very well thought out post, and I am glad that I read it.

posted by justAcarpenter on December 5, 2004 at 7:08 PM | link to this | reply

Brent, I can see your point about war being so dangerous now as to wipe out entire countries. But I think that danger now is less than in the past, when children were drilled to "duck and cover" in school if they saw a bright flash in the sky. We survived the Cold War, in fact we won it, because we raised the technological stakes higher than the Soviets could reach. We were lucky perhaps, but we dodged the big bullet. If my views were shared by enough people, we would never let it get out of hand like that. Wars would be surgical strikes (large ones I suppose) by the "doctors" of democracy and morality in the world, to cut out a cancer of tyranny that is growing in a country, before it gets too big to threaten massive destruction. This is the perfect analogy, I think. Tyranny and evil are the cancer, they do not have a "right to exist", any more than cancer has a "right to exist". Cancer cells are cells of our own body that mutate and begin to grow without limit, blocking all normal functions. If they are not cut out or destroyed, they take over the entire body. Tyranny and evil do that too, on a national scale. So I disagree with that war between nations is a bad thing. It is just as necessary as cancer surgery. Liberal philosophy, and many facets of human nature (such as apathy and cowardice), stand in the way of such pre-emptive military policy. They think it is horrible, but they are wrong. I think we did exactly the right thing in attacking Iraq, we just should have done it about 20 years sooner, even before the first Persian Gulf War.

Here is an excerpt from this blog, from farther down than you read:

We will have “peace” on this planet only when enough humans take individual responsibility for the endorsement and enforcement of human justice, and stop relying upon god or government to someday, somehow provide it.

I think this is a goal we both share. But, you and I know that enough humans will NEVER take such individual responsibility for justice. So, the logical conclusion is, we will NEVER have peace. But it is still the right message, I just have to try harder to get it out. Focusing on PEACE just misdirects and confuses the issue.

posted by GoldenMean on December 4, 2003 at 10:52 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean

I don't have time to read this entire post right now, so maybe you indeed broached what I'm about to broach. Here goes:

I understand that the absence of conflict is unreasonable, even undesireable. The salient point about peace, though, is implied: the absence of warring conflict.

I'm going to go out on a limb. War has become too dangerous. It threatens our very survival as a species -- let alone all the other species on the planet.

In light of this, war may be just at times, but is it ever ethical, especially in these times when mankind has the ability to annihilate itself?

posted by BrWiSk on December 4, 2003 at 3:09 PM | link to this | reply

Thank you, Willow

Your comment is the greatest compliment anyone has ever given me. I thank you from the top (not the bottom) of my heart. I am sorry that EP is bothering you. I am also sorry that he was kicked out of BN. He should realize that I was not responsible for kicking him out. The BN administrators, who I do not know, did that on their own decision. I wish he was still here, to debate and discuss. He is brilliant, and we could have had a great discussion. Perhaps we could have influenced each other, to improve both our philosophies.

posted by GoldenMean on September 4, 2003 at 10:17 PM | link to this | reply

I am close to tears right now. . .

---

I just put you in my favorites.  EP emails me, daily until today, I am not able to block him.  I agree with you on all points and if the rest of the world could or would do that perhaps the "golden mean" would be met.  Like Beachbelle, I, also stand in high alert.  Maybe it's because I worked for the Postal Service for 10 plus years.  We all need to care for each other or else how can we care for ourselves?  It's the ancient ying and yang.  Bless you.  You blogged of things I have always known.  The eloquence served you and fed me the reader.

Willow

---

 

posted by Gentle-Willow on September 2, 2003 at 11:40 PM | link to this | reply

Yes, it is a fine line

If you are alert to what is going on around you, what could happen to you, that is half the battle right there. Some self-defense experts call it "tactical awareness." But if something happens, it is going to happen fast, and your chance to decide "fight or flight" may pass by in an instant. Your opening to press an advantage will also pass by in an instant. Most people probably never think about such things in advance, so they are already at a big disadvantage in a bad situation. I am glad to see that you are thinking about it. Cops and soldiers are trained to think this way for a living, but the rest of are on our own.

posted by GoldenMean on September 1, 2003 at 10:05 PM | link to this | reply

Interesting articel GM. I think that there is often a fine line between being prepared for conflict

and inciting conflict.
In a post I made a few minutes back I explained that I don't carry firearms - I have made my own risk assessment on that - but on the other hand when I walk down the street, drive my car, or even in my own home, I am in a state of constant alert . It is amazing how many people are oblivious to what could happen at any time.

posted by beachbelle on August 31, 2003 at 11:46 PM | link to this | reply