2024-03-31

50: Having Been Massacred Never Justifies Massacring, Rather Massacring Could Justify Having Been or Being Massacred

<The previous article in this series | The table of contents of this series |

The 1st rule of morals is to be symmetric. At the instance you have approved massacring, you have lost the right to object to being massacred

Topics


About: truth
About: fairness

The table of contents of this article

Starting Context

Target Context


  • The reader will understand that having been wronged never justifies wronging, rather at the instance you have approved wronging, you have lost the right to object to having been wronged or being wronged.

Orientation


There is an article on what being fair is.

There is an article on why bias is adamantly stuck to.

There is an article on becoming a benefactor of humanity by being a conduit of truths

Main Body

Stage Direction
Here is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.

1: Having Been Massacred Never Justifies Massacring, Rather Massacring Could Justify Having Been or Being Massacred


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 A massacring is going on on the Bias Planet.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Again ...

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 A tribe that were massacred in the past are massacring now.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 ... Have they not learned that massacring is bad through their having been massacred?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Rather they seem to be thinking that they are allowed to massacre because they were massacred.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 ... Is that supposed to be a revenge?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Whatever the culprits suppose, the act cannot be construed to be any revenge, because they are massacring a tribe who were not the past offenders.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Then, why are they allowed to massacre?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 They have to survive.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Yes, I agree, and I also agree that also the tribe being massacred have to survive.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 The pretext for their massacring is that they were attacked by some terrorists.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 I agree that the terrorists must be brought to justice, but why can children or innocent persons be killed?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 So-called "joint liability"?

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Then, also the past massacring could be justified as "joint liability", could that not?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 "joint liability" of what crime?

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 If there was even a single killer among the tribe, "joint liability" could be invoked.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 It is quite unlikely that there was no killer among the tribe, as is so among each tribe. In fact, there is a grave fact that the tribe crucified a man on whose teachings one of the most major religion on the Bias Planet is based.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Then, we would have no reason to condemn the past massacring, if we accepted the principle of "joint liability".

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 We are claiming that the past massacring was absolutely unacceptable, but we are in danger of losing the reason to claim so.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 What was the reason for the past massacring?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 As an undertone, there was some enduring hatred against the tribe, who had a religion which assumed the tribe to be the chosen people, and also there were some circumstances like that there were many loan sharks among the tribe.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 "chosen people"? What are "chosen people"?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 I am not perfectly sure but they seem to be the special people chosen by God.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 A quite barbarous idea, but we have to admit that many ignorant tribes imagined themselves to be "special". I guess that it used to be a rather prevalent phenomenon. Also many Japanese used to imagine that their land was the holy land and kamikaze (holy wind) was imagined to blow away unholy aliens.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Such idea comes from ignorance and certainly all were quite ignorant and all are still ignorant more or less.

Anyway, we condemn the past massacring as absolutely unacceptable, but that is not because the tribe is "special".

We are condemning any massacring or any killing because massacring or killing is bad, and if we approved (although we never do) your massacring or killing, we would have no reason to condemn your being massacred or killed.

If you bring up the absolutely-unacceptable idea of "joint liability", I point out that there is no tribe (especially yours) so impeccable to escape "joint liability".

We never say this, but a very expected voice is "The past massacring was the right thing to do after all, because they have proved themselves to be a massacring tribe.". I never say that, because I never want to become a beast approving massacring.

2: Stop Roughly Lumping Persons Together


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 In fact, "joint liability" is a root of much evil.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Do not roughly lump up persons together, we are saying ...

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 There are a variety of persons in any tribe or in any category, and we cannot say that the persons of a tribe or a category are such.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 All the persons of a gender are certainly of the gender, but other than that, we cannot say that all the persons of a gender have a same taste or are stupid or are weak or are bad or are inferior or something, without any firm evidence.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Certainly, there are differences of averages, minimums, maximums between categories, but there can be the most superior person in a category of a low average, and it is absolutely unjust to treat the most superior person based on the average.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 We are repeatedly saying that we have to evaluate any individual by looking at the individual, not by roughly lumping up some individuals in a category and assuming that all the individuals in the category are such.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 That die-hard practice of judging by categories comes from the inveterate laziness of most people, who refuse to bother to look at individuals, because that is a bother.

In fact, laziness is the root of all the evil.

Whatever we say, the lazy people will refuse to bother.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 But respecting the dignity of a human being is to look at the individual, without treating the human being as just a member of a category.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 For the massacring case, do not regard an individual to deserve to be killed just because the individual is lumped up in a tribe.

3: But Persons Who Have Not Raised Objections Against Terrors Are Not Innocent


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 But I do not agree to the claim that the every person who did not directly commit the terror is innocent.

If you disagree with the terror, you have to raise objections, otherwise, you are an accomplice.

If you see someone bullied and are silent, you are an accomplice of the bullying.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 That is a very important point: some bullies inevitably appear statistically speaking, and the issue is whether the others stop the bullies.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 If the massacring tribe claim that being massacred are not innocent because they were silent watching terrors, I in fact agree about the persons who were really silent, although I do not agree that killing is the right punishment, and I point out that there may be some persons who raised objections, who are indeed innocent, and killing such innocent persons is an absolute atrocity, and the children cannot be blamed.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Again, do not roughly lump up persons together, we are saying. If there are some (even if many) silent accomplices, punish only them, not the innocent who raised objections.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 I observe that many persons are thinking that being silent is a safe thing to do, but in fact, being silent watching any injustice is being an accomplice of the injustice, and you have lost the right to claim being innocent, which is the most dangerous thing to do in my opinion.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 You should think of the fact that if you are silent watching a terror, you could be killed as an accomplice of the terror, is that safe?

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 In fact, we are publishing this article in order to refuse being an accomplice of the massacring. If you do not do likewise, you are an accomplice of the massacring.

4: Talking Government-Wise


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Talking government-wise, the country who has produced a terrorist against another country has to be the first to condemn the terrorist and try the hardest to bring the culprit to justice.

If the government fails to do that, the government cannot object to be regarded as the boss of the terrorist.

If the people see the government failing, it is the people's duty to condemn the government, and if the people fail to condemn the government, the people cannot object to be regarded as the supporters of the terrorist.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Obviously, the victim country would resort to retaliation according to the logic.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 We repeat that massacring is not the right punishment, but we would like to remind you that being a silent bystander could bring you the consequences.

5: The 1st Rule of Morals Is to Be Symmetric


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 I have to observe that many people on the Bias Planet do not follow the 1st rule of morals: be symmetric.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 I wonder whether they even know the rule.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 If you need to object to being killed, you need to object to killing, which is symmetry, which they do not seem to understand.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 I wonder whether that is a matter of lack of imagination of imagining in others' shoes or just sheer selfishness.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Are they selfish because they lack imagination or do they lack imagination because they are selfish? ... Well, probably, they just lack imagination and are selfish.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Or their logic seems involving their being "special".

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 If they are "special", also any other tribe is "special", which is symmetry.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 They are observing "God"'s commandments, so, they are "special".

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 That "God" they call is just their "God"; another tribe are observing the tribe's "God", so, the another tribe are "special", which is symmetry.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 Someone may say that we are just promoting our own agenda.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 Yes, we are, and so what? Certainly, our agenda is being truthful and fair, and we despise the people who are untruthful or unfair, but we admit their right to promote their agenda and to despise us, which is symmetry.

Look, there is nothing wrong in each one's promoting one's own agenda as far as one does not begin to harm others' basic human rights.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 One can legitimately despise anyone, because that is about one's own mind, but one is not allowed to harm someone's basic human rights (especially kill) someone just because one despise someone.

6: It Is Indeed Our Business


Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 There may be someone who say "It is none of your business.", but if we were silent watching a massacre, we would be an accomplice of the massacre, which is very much our business.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 There are many people who deem that being silent is safe, but that is a blatant short sight: they are risking becoming accomplices of wrongdoings.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 We definitely do not want to be any accomplice of any massacring, and so, we are forced to speak up.

Certainly, we also condemn the terrors that are claimed to be the justification of the massacring.

Special-Student-7-Rebutter
 I have heard a claim that condemning the massacring is justifying the terrors, but that is absolutely a perverted argument.

Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
 We are saying that any basic human rights violation is not allowed, whether that is a terror or a massacring.

References
<The previous article in this series | The table of contents of this series |

Posted by at
Labels: