Whose Death Matters More?
I think the first time I grappled with this question was in an undergraduate philosophy course. The professor was a Yalie, very very smart, and loved to provoke us. His job, after all. So one day, when a famous person had died, he said in his flippant way, “obviously this man was much more important than Joe Schmoe down the block, and the society should value him more, and try harder to protect him and tend to him if he’s sick, etc etc.”
And so we debated, in the way of young students. Who is to say that one man’s life is worth more than another’s? Maybe Mr Schmoe was a better husband/father than Einstein, where does that go in the balance scales of life? Yes, we will long remember Einstein, and no one remembers Schmoe except maybe his dear ones, but still…
In a way, there’s nothing to debate, because Einstein had a far greater effect on far more people than Schmoe did. But one of the great achievements of Western civilization is our conviction that every human life is precious, and that belief underlies the entire Judeo-Christian enterprise. So, while Einstein will live forever, as they say, Schmoe was endowed with the same fundamental rights, and in that sense Schmoe was as important as Einstein.
So what to do with those who laugh at us, and who despise our love of life? What of Nazis who murder millions who they judge unworthy or inferior? What of the Muslim terrorists who tell us that they will destroy Western civilization precisely because we value life while they embrace death, ours and their own? Do we ignore their threats, and treat them the same way as we treat one another?
I watched “Independence Day” over the weekend, which raises this issue very dramatically. The aliens arrive and target mankind for annihilation. We approach them in peace, with an outstretched hand; they blow us up. In the end, we have to fight, and a suitably diverse group from around the world defeats the aliens. But the stars are American: a black man and a white Jew. If not for their heroism, all the efforts of all the world’s citizens would have failed. Keep that thought for a few paragraphs.
It’s easy when the enemies aren’t even human, but in cases of human conflict we invariably take sides. Mostly we see conflicts as “us vs. them.” If Schmoe and Einstein were fighting to the death, we’d pick one and root for him. Right?
Well, not always. It’s not so simple. Lots of us didn’t take sides in the Iran-Iraq war, for example. I, for one, rooted for the war. And what about the cases where terrorists are fighting against a civilized country (even when its degree of “civilization” may be in doubt)? Do you root for the Chechens or the Russians? And how do you feel about ethnic terrorism against the Islamic Republic of Iran?
In war (the real, down and dirty kind), bullets/bombs/grenades etc. don’t avoid gentle spirits and ‘good’ and ‘noble’ or even ‘innocent’ people [hence, 'collateral damage']. The ugly side of mankind is war and thus far it’s unavoidable unfortunately to keep the ‘peace’.
WELL I DEFINATELY AGREE WITH MICHEAL LADEAN THAT OUR FIGHTING BOY’S TRULY OUR THE WORLDS’ GREATEST POEPLE. SO I DEFINATELY ADMIRE MICHEAL LADEAN ALL THE MORE BECASUE HE CHOSE TO SPEND HIS LIFE DEALING WITH THE BRAT’S IN ACADEMIA RATHER THEN CHOSEN THE RITEOUS PATH TO LIVING AND WORKING WITH THE BEST POEPLE IN THE MILITARY.
WELL YES, THE MILITARY WOULD OF BEEN A EASY CHOICE FOR LADEAN, A CUSHY LIFE WITH GOVERMENT-PAYED HEALTH CARE, BUT HE CHOSE THE HARD ROAD OF EDDUCATION AND FOR THAT WE SHOULD ALL THANK HIM AND ADMIRE HIM.
PS WELL ‘INDEPENDANCE DAY’ TRULY A THOUGHT-PROVOCKING MOVIE
In grad school in philosophy, to an extraordinary degree, the professors I had were apologists for relativism (which at its extreme tends to be suicidal) and for absolutism (which at its extreme tends to be homicidal). Every one of them was a determinst, blinking uncomprehendingly at the observation that a deterministic world-view is one of the six common features in Nazism, Fascism, Marxism, Maoism, Pol Pot(ism) and Khomeinism.
Those that mean to kill us are frightened of us, and it is their fears that motivate their hate. But murder is murder, not to be tolerated, whether they believe their hatred is justified or not. There are too many alternative paths one can choose to take besides murder, even if one’s fears are manifest as murderous hate.
Douglas once wrote, that the measure of whether a culture was becoming a civilization was the value its society placed upon objectivity. The greater the appreciation for objectivity, the more civilized is the culture.
I’m confident that both Einstein and Schmoe would agree, and that too many professors of philosophy would not.
Mr. Ledeen,
This is a very thought provoking analysis, and brutally honest.
I think the problem lies with society as a whole; good vs evil. In my opinion, when society strays from true judean/christian princliples, confusion begins. Progressives, who use the method of labeling who’s a victim, or not, are those who actually begin this confusion. It is a wilfull confusion. War’s have always existed.
In a nushell, I lay this confusion on the ideology of progressism, and consequently totalitarian indoctrinations.
Would we follow the true teachings of the Bible, we would understand that all lives are precious. Yet, because of this absence, a second religion is the ‘cool of the day’, and with it comes this sickness of following truth as false, justice upside down, good is bad, etc.
Anyway, again, thanks for this though provoke of the day.
interesting essay.
..but …yes always a but. I think you miss a very important point because like it or not you are viewing from the point of an intellectual. Maybe an elite (I don’t think you are an elitist).
my take on things is …. “I am no more important than anyone but no one is more important then me”.
from here everything else falls into place. it all fades to black and there is no imaginary friend on the “other side”.
so is Einstein more important then Schmoe ? …not to me and Schmoe is not more important then Einstein.
if some one tries to injury/kill me then I have no choice but to defend against someone trying to be more/better then me.
regards
I’m not really sure how it is that in the 21st century people can support philosophical stances that when taken to their conclusion, lead to Schmoe going into the ovens as long as those ashes mean that Einstein can build on the “common good” in a way that he wouldn’t be able to pre-roasting, but here we are.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for genius – especially if it comes out of a US college campus.
Anyone with the gifts to really make a true difference will have been so indoctrinated with the pap of Progressivism, anti-Americanism, and a hatred of the values of most Americans that we will be lucky if he or she merely decides to become a “community organizer” or a climate scientist.
My great fear is rapidly becoming that, as the current Progressive insanity is driven back by public outrage over the damage it has done to our country, somewhere in a college laboratory (most likely here inside the US) there is a young man or young woman who is so filled with the ideas of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich – not to mention Al Gore, Jeremiah Wright, Ted Turner, and Van Jones – who is so angered by the “breaking again of the promise of the Progressive Utopia” that they are presently hatching some device or bug that will bring about what I see as the dark motivator behind much of the Climate Change nihilism…the reduction of humanity to a shadow that no longer “presents a terrible threat to our beautiful Mother Earth”.
If there is a massive overthrow of the Commiecrats in the fall and Obama is in deep trouble for many of his illegal and unconstitutional actions, don’t be surprised if a whole bunch of bad things come to pass from acts committed by these so-called “Enlightened souls” – ones that may threaten the entire country or even the species called man.
No Marine is worth a terrorist…nor should we read a terrorist their “rights” as they have none under international law (i.e. the Geneva Conventions). We should question then rigourously then try them before a military tribunal, and if they are found guilty, execute them immediately.
Of cour, as a former Marine Lance Corporal, I suppose that I hold rather extreme views on this, but then, terrorists in the early ’80′s killed a dozen guys I went to boot camp with in Beirut. Shoot ‘em all, and let Allah sort ‘em out.
“Which is nuts.”
That about sums it up.
Everyone gets the same treatment: I have no problem with anyone else trying to eke out a living for their family. But when somebody suddenly decides that little, old me is their enemy and wants me dead when I haven’t done anything to him, then it’s time to defend myself any way I can.
Of course Einstein’s life, as a life, was worth no more than any other. But by what he chose to do with his gifts his production resulted in a very worthy life. Problem is, who can know until death what one’s life is truly worth?
5,000 men died on the first day of the WW II invasion of Europe. One could argue that they all died before they reached their potential – others would argue that their potential was wholly fulfilled by the laying down of their lives for their fellows, their nation, and their honor; and therefore they exceeded Einstein. Even today, our troops deploy to put the uniform and their between our soil, our families, our way of life and the adversary…as scientists work freely in the cause of human knowledge.
But to compare either Einstein or the troops to the vile, base, vulgar, even obscene terrorist (whatever his/her creed) who indescrimanately or deliberately blows up women and children is abomination. Those who attempt to validate the the “moral relativism” of such cowardly acts deserve more than the verbal scorn of free people. Terrorists who target the innocent, surround themselves with human shields; use hospitals, places of worship, and ambulances to further their campaigns, or who steal/deny aid to the innocent and oppressed are responsible for the horror they precipitate. Their supporters (financial, political, spiritual, media)ought be targets as well.
Terrorist is just a word the Bush administration applied to dark skinned Muslims he targeted for genocide. The Bush regime’s “War on Terror” is a slaughter for greater than Hitler could ever have imagined. However, that doesn’t mean those who are conducting that slaughter have any choice about what they are doing. If they did not join the military, crime or starvation would be the only other options. In light of the choices facing America’s poor, those who killed by Muslims defending their homelands are no less victim’s of the Bush genocidal war machine than the Muslims themselves. Casualties on both sides need to be remembered equally as the victims of not merely the Bush regime, but of the genocidal global capitalist order that still reigns even though Bush is gone.
Sometimes attempts to honor the dead obscure who is to blame. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the victims of 9-11 are a deliberate propaganda ploy to shut down discussion about who really was behind the events of that day. Instead of weeping for the victims, it would be more productive to interview those who left and find out if they knew anything.
When a terrorist dies in a hail of napalm, that’s good. When one of our Marines is killed, that’s bad.
Marines are precious, terrorists don’t even qualify as human. Their lives have negative value.
Of course, there are special cases, for example you could have a Marine who is also a terrorist on the side, but generally speaking, my rule holds.
2. JUST A NORMAL GUY (THE ORIGINAL): “WELL I DEFINATELY AGREE WITH MICHEAL LADEAN THAT OUR FIGHTING BOY’S TRULY OUR THE WORLDS’ GREATEST POEPLE.”
Yep, Mike went way out on a limb again but proved his point, knocking out his strawman opponent as if he were made of … straw.
Rich Vail, #8: Shoot ‘em all, and let Allah sort ‘em out.
That approach doesn’t have much appeal for those who don’t believe in the existence of Allah to do any sorting, or for that matter in any other deity or afterlife, in the first place. If there is nothing beyond this mortal coil but total oblivion, then taking another human life is absolutely the worst thing a human being can do, and any justification becomes merely so much window dressing.
There, I suspect, is where the rub really is.
Culture is everything. The multiculturalists are only a post-modern version of the nihilists of yore. Mr. Ledeen reminds us that our judeo-christian respect for the Schmoes is the contrasting element of our western values. We are beginning to wake up to the existence of other cultures where the schmoes can be made into guided missiles for the promise of a paradise where the pre-martyrdom Schmoes will become supreme and enjoy all the heretofore forbidden earthly pleasures.
So, brave Schomes that we are, can we still choose which schmological epistemology we would rather preserve?
I nearly agreed with some of that.
One of the things I nearly agreed with was the idea that “every life is precious” is the basis of the Judeo-Christian enterprise. I think the basis of that particular enterprise is every SOUL is precious. We all know what used to happen when a Christian saw a conflict between preserving an individual’s life and saving their soul don’t we? The translation from ‘soul’ to ‘life’ is a secular development on that tradition.
The last line of the article was particularly horrible. That phrase, “a pile of Schmoes”; the last time I saw a “pile of Schmoes” was in a film about Belsen. So I think about the pile of Schmoes and re-read the article and I think ‘better a dead terrorist than a dead soldier and better a dead soldier than a dead civilain’. Because they’re all Schmoes and we’re all Schmose, and the only way, literally the only way, to avoid Belsen is to always value civilian Schmose more than soldier Schmoes.
Each of us is borne with what we start with. Part of the time we are influenced by the actions of others, and the rest of the time we are the agents of influence.
Somewhere, in all these variables, (lets compare Second World War generals) a Patton takes one road, whereas a Rommel takes another road.
#14 “Apostle of Love”,
That has to be the biggest load of crap I’ve ever read on this website; and that’s really saying something.
A terrorist is not just some made up word invented by that idiot Bush; it’s an actual legal term. To dumb it down for you, a terrorist is a person who commits acts of violence against non-combatants for political purposes.
I’ve disagreed with Mr. Ledeen several times on his various positions and I do accept that Muslims around the world have legitimate grievances with the U.S., but that is not a justification for committing terrorism. War should be confined to the warriors, not civilians.
BTW, the majority of Muslims that have been killed in the past 100 years were not killed by western soldiers but by “muslim” terrorists.
17. On the contrary. If all we are is dust in the wind, then nothing really matters and this life is all vanity.
14. Spare us your patronage. Our boys overseas are not poor kids who had no other choice. Rather, they are better educated than the average American, and from the absurdity you wrote, I conclude that includes you. Or, maybe you’re some overeducated elitist who has lost all the common sense he ever had, when there wasn’t much to start with. Pray tell, how does one commit genocide against a proselytizing religion?
I’m with you Dave.There is good and there is bad.
This is simple when we’re talking about Arabs, who are terrorists and shouldn’t be even counted as human.
But what about an American hero like Joseph A. Stack? They’re trying to paint him as a terrorist. But we all know he’s a White Christian Patriot, and a Warrior for Freedom against the big government of “President” Hussein, Arab in Chief.
Is his life worth less than some Schmoe in the IRS, helping tBig Government drain the savings of good Americans and give it to a bunch of welfare bums?
Ethnocentrism buttressed with a heavy feeding of military propaganda at its finest.
Einstein had it correct when he said, “the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits”.
Nothing justifies the actions of any terrorists. But if we want to stop them, then we must understand the real reasons why they are willing to kill themselves and others for their cause.
This isn’t a comic book with a cabal of ‘evildoers’ scheming in a hideout to destroy liberty and goodness. They don’t “hate us for our freedom”, though that’s been the chant since 9/11.
The simplified version of the reasons is threefold:
First, the US has been installing murderous dictators (Sadam, The Shah, etc.) for decades to keep things stable for the oil business. Think of the oil barons as Einstein and the murdered masses as Schmoes.
Second, they have their own versions of Glen Beck over there, whipping up murderous hatred with lies and fear tactics. And, of course, too many people are convinced that these guys are the only one who tells the truth. Rabid anti-American media is as big as FOX news over there.
Thirdly, there’s the religious angle. Once you convince someone that they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife for murdering people, you’ve drastically lowered the threshold for suicide missions. Add to that the whole “harem of virgins in the afterlife” part. Can you imagine the urgency of young man in a gender-segregated society to get at those virgins? Harnessing that lust is as effective as it is wrong.
I’m not talking about sympathy for terrorists. I’m not talking about hating America. I love my country even if its foreign policy sometimes deviates tragically from our values. I’m talking about understanding the problem so we can start solving it.
This is simple when we’re talking about Arabs, who are terrorists and shouldn’t be even counted as human.
But what about an American hero like Joseph A. Stack? They’re trying to paint him as a terrorist. But we all know he’s a Christian Patriot, and a Warrior for Freedom against the big government of “President” Hussein, Arab in Chief.
Is his life worth less than some Schmoe in the IRS, helping Big Government drain the savings of good Americans and give it to a bunch of welfare bums?
Roy M. is smart.
This kind of topic is cut from the back of boredom. What kind of person sits down and tries to decide who will live and who will die? That is essentially what can be implied when you boil the water out of this crap topic. And if one were to persist, and insist that the idea is really to figure if someone is worthier or more valuable than another (and so arguing from a seemingly brighter note) then you are really trying to decide about righteousness. Do you really want to go that road? It probably wasn’t the intention, I’m sure. So, the topic is crap. Or is it to try and catalogue every dynamic that you can descry in the mind’s eye? If you aren’t prepared to talk about righteousness then you aren’t prepared to compare Joe Schmoe to Einstein.
The Bible says this about spiritual righteousness, do not think about who will ascend, because that brings Christ down from heaven, and do not think about who will descend, because that raises Christ from the dead again. [Romans 10: 6-7]
Mr. Ladeen, While I agree with most of what you said, I am afraid you took a fairly simple notion and make it sound complicated.
The importance (or value) of a person is all in the eyes of the beholder. A murderer might well be much loved and highly admired by his loved ones although he is generally held contemptible. Christopher Columbus may be a great hero to many, but some Native Americans might hold a different view.
As a society, by majority rule, we hold certain people more important and act accordingly. For example, we protect the safety of the president with considerable resources, because his continued presence and functioning while he is in office is valuable to our society. But as individuals, each of us will have a very different assessment of the value and importance of a particular president.
At the society level, it works the same way. Some society thinks certain people, or certain behavior, as exemplary while other societies may have a completely different assessment. To try to force one society’s view on another society is the root of all wars.
Einstein=Schmoe=Marine=terrorist?
Yes, before God and the law, not because it is true in social value, intelligence, contribution, etc., but because that is the foundation of our society. If we abandon that vision, we will not be what we have been, but a relativistic and eventually dictatorial desert.
The Russia and United state of America C-START which is for missile defense,missile interceptor, and anti missile warfare always correspond with time travel machine for galactic pictures.
C-START means Continue start or Common start for viewers of galactic photographic pictures in laboratories and technical workshops if the the commercial products
of time travel machine are purchased in the market will the consumer and customer start where the developers watched or will they replay already watched pictures of galaxy.
Then the first buyers and late purchasers of galactic picture and time travel machine will the picture L-Cross to what they have viewed on the satellite or is their a storage memory that will play former events.
For instance exam was schedule to last for 1 hour and some people came late as far as 45 minutes to end the examination will the people that start the same time with the examiner submit their answer script with
other late comers or can they be given an extra time to write every thing where by some late comer may finish every answer option more than people that came early depending on their mental capabilities.
Then the common charger by IEE to be introduced by 2011 will every firm boot and pool loss video of galactic picture and time travel machine in their studio to correspond to new world order of one nation,one brotherhood philosophy.
“in France, where the Marquis de Sade somehow became a culture hero”
Marquis de Sade never was a school subject, he has always been seen as sulfurous, only persons who have the purpose to graduate in Litterature have the opportunity to decorticate Marquis de Sade writings, a movie happens to be made on his stories from times to times, and evidently it is an edulcorated version
About who decides who’s life is worth or not of living, some times ago the US had their “evil” will to select who had the right to reproduce, scientific “eugenism” was sponsored by some “vertuous” foundations
I don’t think Mailer’s appalling influence can be overestimated. I routinely hear from readers who are outraged when I fail to express an appropriate quotient of empathy for and approbation of violent offenders. I never hear from people who demand similar respect for the victims of criminals (with the glaring exception of the small cohort of victims designated victims of hate — some hate, that is).
Criminology and law school faculties, parole boards, the Democratic Party, newsrooms and even the judiciary are saturated with people who believe that the only real criminals are the people who hold criminals responsible for their actions. This belief is personal, obsessive, and fetishistic — unsurprisingly so, as it emerges directly from Normal Mailer’s self-indulgent philosophy that blood and mayhem must purify the wretched bourgeois street. Graft that philosophy onto the treatment of terrorism, and nothing that has happened in recent months should surprise.
i think we found a Yale alum here, heh.