Will my Sec 4 students please respond to the following paragraph, or to any part of the essay I've given to you.
Click on the 'Comments' hyperlink at the bottom of this post and start posting. Remember to leave your name at the end of your post. You may also respond to comments by your peers and I will also comment on your comments (:
'Some critics of the stand that war produces no winners, only losers, may claim that wars are fought for heroic and noble causes by providing examples of wars fought for unification of territory as in China, or against barbarians such as in the case of the Crusades. However, they have forgotten that these are merely excuses for more sinister and dark agendas, such as genocide and for the lust of power.'
~ Ng Khiang Ching Rona (RJC 1997)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The author has overlooked some ‘righteous’ causes of war.
Consider that the world today is more rational and economic-orientated than it was 65 years ago. The author stated in her article, wars are not economically productive; hence it is only rational that any government that wages war to have considered the potential loss and gain, and have deemed the war is worth fighting.
Wars out of defensive purposes are justifiable. If the defensive side defeats the offensive, then the government and people of the defensive side is the winner. The duties of the government include protection for people within the political and geographical boundaries of the nation state. If waging wars does help to fulfil this duty (i.e. save more people of both sides from dying, prevent more destructions), then the winner’s position is justified regardless of any condemnations of ‘loss of humanity’.
Science has not become uglier, what is becoming uglier is the way humans use science. Let’s not discuss the nature of human beings here, the writer’s argument does not hold much water as well. There are many advantageous inventions from wars which she did not mention. Almost all revolutions of technology are related to wars. (E.g. Computers, nuclear technologies and rocketry are invented during World WarⅡ) Thus we can see that war is the most effective way to fasten the development of civilization.
The writer talked much about the numerous death of people and the destruction during wars. However, wars also destruct those unenlightened culture. (E.g. The Europeans’ inbreak of North America which destroyed the uncultured aboriginal culture, and came out with the advanced culture of America…) (BTW, for the numerous death of people, if we consider it from another perspective, we can say that this helps reduce the burden of Earth due to over-population..)
(er..my comment is a bit long..)
In general I think the essay is quite well-written except for the following:
Using the economic statistics and death tolls to gauge whether any party profits through wars is myopic and partial. This is because:
a) On micro-level, there are times when the initial motives of a particular party outweigh its domestic economic and social losses. (i.e. It is ignorant to deny the righteous causes of war, and tag whatever incentives with the label “sinister and dark agendas”)
i. A war against colonization, say, is usually deemed worthwhile, as it best protects national interest, despite of the economic plunges.
ii. The value of freedom and sovereignty can not be measured simply in terms of capitals, infrastructures, or even loss of lives in a particular era.
If citizens are deprived of the rights to make informed choices both individually and collectively, if nation as a whole is incapable of self-defiance, and if autonomy fails, considerations of economic losses is beyond the primary interest.
b) On a macro-level, (sometimes) punishments for the ambitious (or whatever form of evil) are necessary for the benefits of humanity as a whole.
i. The utilitarian perspective:
(E.g.) It is obviously more efficient and beneficial for the Allies (and many other nations) to respond to the cruelty and injustice of the intruders in the battlefield, than discussing which portion of Russia, for instance, should belong to Germany at the negotiation table. Even though the latter is obviously more “civilized”, will people nevertheless see it as a victory of humanity?
In addition, wars chastise the intruder economically, politically and socially, shaking the foundation of its power structure, hence undercut its ability of further violation.
ii. Kantism:
Invasion should pay for its evil. Justice only
Some controversial ideas raised...
Chuyi, does anyone have the right to 'destruct unenlightened cultures'?
Even if war is the most effective way to hasten the development of civilization, is it morally justifiable?
Are there more peaceful ways to settle the issue even as a country is on the brink of being invaded? Is war/retaliation/defence the only way to react to intruders?
I think the writer is a humanist. Here are some of her points:
1)A 'statistic' of war for her 'represents a precious human life' lost.
2)In war, it is 'humanity as a whole which loses'. She's thinking of the two warring sides as belonging to a single entity-humanity. So irregardless of who the winner is, humanity still loses.
3)How about the death of the civilians? The innocent bystanders?
She expounds on the point that war is always wrong because lives (especially innocent ones) are lost, which is a gross sin on humanity.
Even wars waged for so-called 'heroic and noble causes' such as 'unification of territory' or ridding of barbarians are done because of selfish wants and a prejudice against those who are different.
Post a Comment