[lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem?

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT)

--- Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Omar Kusturica wrote:
> "If two men both in principle endorse horrible
> violence, then the only
> moral criterion that remains to distinguish between
> them is that one was
> prepared to live up to his principles, while the
> other was not."
> As if violence committed in the course of upholding
> the rule of law were
> morally irrelevant?  Omar lauds the psychopath for
> having the courage to
> actually slit the throats of innocent people while
> deriding Eric for
> defending the state in its use of violence in the
> course of establishing
> the rule of law.  At the very least, one would think
> that refraining
> from acts like mutilation would have moral value but
> on Omar's account,
> committing this barbaric act is in fact morally
> distinguishable.  That
> is, Omar lauds the moral courage of the murderer
> because he is willing
> to actually butcher innocent people.  Eric, on the
> other hand, is
> chastised for suggesting the state might use
> violence to establish the
> rule of law.  Omar holds an ideological position
> that is sympathetic to
> those who not only advocate but practice butchery
> and genocide.

*Sorry I fail to see the ethical difference between
the acts of torture, murder, mutilation etc. when
committed by "the state" as opposed to being committed
by individuals. So yes, I think that those who
actually commit acts of violence personally are
somewhat morally superior to those who whimper to the
Big Brother to send someone else to do it for them.
Sue me.


Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: