I wrote a big long nice post which got deleted as i mentioned before. So here's attempt #2.
I want to try and start a specific time aside for writing every day. So let's see how this works. Now just because i'm writing eveyr day doesn't mean it will all be online but here goes..
I was just walking listening to a new dixie chicks song Lubbock or leave it and it made me think about how in the ten commandments the first one is thou shalt not kill. I know it's in there somwhere anyways, it may not be the first.
Well in my philosophy class we talked about whether such a universal law is possible. And the implications of it. For example, if you had to make a choice whether to save lives if doing so would kill one person, would violating this law be ok,. etc.
This relates to the song, because the song talks about religion in the south (of the US) and there being 'more churches than trees". In the US however many people, including many christians (i imagine) support the death penalty. Which means that they support the violation of the principle 'thou shalt not kill', in the specific cases where the death penalty has been awarded.
So there is this internal contradiction there.(I don't necessarily think that it is hypocritical, however many of the opponents of the death penalty use the same arguments ie thou shalt not kill, and the importance of forgiveness as reasons for repealing the death penalty) However I was thinking that that fact alone does not itself undermine the universal applicability of the command 'thou shalt not kill"
I don't think there is anywhere on earth that the rule does not apply.Except in very specific contexts. That is the key to remember. I imaine even in tribes which practiced cannibalism, or sacrificed people, it was only in very specific contexts.
I personally beleive that there are such universals rules such as 'thou shalt not kill'. I don't think they necessarily all belong to the christian doctrine, but I do believe such rules exist.
I think everyone could agree that as a general principle thou shalt not kill is a good one.
That's all for now
1 comment:
It's interesting you are writing about this topic now because just the other day at work I was listening to Howard Zinn on a podcast, and he was talking about the same topic (ie, when it is considered appropriate to kill) in the context of the Iraq war/war on terror. His arguement was that in war, people describe deaths of their enemies as justified, because their enemies are dangeous, a threat, etc etc. But Zinn took issue with calling civilian deaths "accidental", when instead, if we are being honest, we should use the term "inevitable". Because, if your target is living in an apartment building, for example, and you bomb it, you know full well doing so that people are going to die - so its not really an accident, or 'too bad', or whatever else you want to call it, because its a conscious choice, and you knew there would be civilian casualities. Anyway, that was his argument for ending the war in Iraq and war in general (obviously, he has more reasons as well.... )
Anyway, interesting post, and I hope you stick goal of trying to write more often :)
Post a Comment