Relative values of lives

[sam h]

Reading the thread about Pat Tillman's death, I saw much debate about the importance of the sacrifice he had made and the relative values of lives of American serviceman. That sort of discussion, and the general media treatment of American casualities overseas, really begs another set of questions.

What is the worth of a non-American life? Why is it that people express these gut churning emotions when a handful of Americans die in combat yet seem to hardly blink an eye with more news of the "oh, incidentally another 34 Iraqis died yesterday" variety? Why is it that when the media discusses in weighty tones the "cost" of the Vietnam war it always quotes a figure of roughly 50,000 American lives lost, yet rarely notes that estimates of Vietnamese (and Cambodian and Laotian) casualties, civilian and military, generally run over the one million mark?

I find myself disturbingly falling into this thinking as well, so I'm not trying to point fingers or assert some kind of moral superiority. I just think its important to realize and think about the fact that the lives of non-Americans are assigned relatively little significance or value in a lot of discourse about foreign policy. This, of course, is no doubt true for many countries. But its especially important for us to think about, as the hegemonic world power.

If we really want people in the Arab world to trust us, maybe we should start by assigning equal value to their lives. I don't see it happening, however, as what seems to keep so many people going is this notion of American Exceptionalism, that we are a special people with a special mission, and therefore, implicitly, that our lives are more meaningful and more valuable than others.

[Zeno]

Life has no meaning.

[jdl22]

A couple of things. Firstly, I agree with your main point. I actually considered making a similar post having read that thread.

One thing is that other countries do the same. If you are in Spain for example and you watch the news they will point out the number of Spanish people that died in a plane crash occurring in a foreign country just as is done here.

I think it comes down to being able to identify with the victim(s). I had similar questions about September 11. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available to the families of the victims. While this clearly is a good thing, I wondered why these people get this money when a guy I know from high school got nothing but social security when his father, the major bread winner in the family, was murdered. Seems unlikely that the loss of his father is any easier than that of someone whose father worked in the trade center, and certainly not enough to warrant receiving nothing in the first case and having their entire college paid for in the second. Again, before anybody gets the wrong idea, I thing the money available to these victims is a good thing. I donated to one of these funds myself.

After thinking about it I decided that the main difference is that we can identify with the September 11 victims. While we can't really imagine what they went through, we too were scared and had that awful feeling in the pits of our stomachs. We were able to feel for them. When my friend from high schools father died it was isolated and of course nobody heard about it. Certainly very few if any strangers questioned their own mortality even if they did hear of his murder. The only people that can really identify with him are people that know him very well or people that have suffered a similar fate.

[HDPM]

I think this is it. People identify with a group. Most Americans know Americans. They don't know any Iraqis. And they don't really care. Not because they are absolutely uncaring, but because they feel no connection to the other person; have no experience that leads them to care about Iraqis in any but an intellectual way. This is normal and I think people in all countries are guilty of it. But if we can get people thinking more broadly, we will all be better off. The day people feel a connection to other people because they are people, or at least increasingly feel that way, is the day we will have fewer wars. I think a lot of religions say people ought to feel this way, but they have had relatively little success conveying the message.

[elwoodblues]

This has always bothered me. Similarly, I am bothered by those who are "pro-life" but also in favor of the death penalty.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
The day people feel a connection to other people because they are people, or at least increasingly feel that way, is the day we will have fewer wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best quote I've read in a long time.

[adios]

Basically I agree but there are some things to consider IMO. One is that often Middle East countries don't share Western values in that they don't seem to place as high a value on life for one thing. Witness Iran and Saudi Arabia. Secondly fanatical muslims that participate in and advocate suicide terrorism (admittedly a minority of Arabs) don't share Western values nor do they place a high value on life.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, I am bothered by those who are "pro-life" but also in favor of the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seem like "pro choice" and anti death penalty might be bothersome to you as well for the same reason.

[elwoodblues]

Whether they put a high value on life is irrelevant to whether I do.

[Gamblor]

L'Enfer, c'est les autres.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether they put a high value on life is irrelevant to whether I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm tempted to simply reply why is this relevant? FWIW I believe many Western inhabitants don't put a high value on Arab lives because Arabs don't appear to put a high value on their own lives. That notion is probably a mistaken one IMO though. It is something to consider when appealing for people's compassion IMO.

[HDPM]

I don't think it is that simple. As an example, lets take a stereotypical media portrayal of some Palestinians. When a Palestinian friend or relative is killed, you will see real mourning covered by the media. Now a terrorist kills some Israelis or Americans and the same people (let's assume by way of example) are shown by the media celebrating. Do these people respect human life or not? Does it depend on the day? Do they too value some lives more than others? I think it is safe to say they have some of the same problems of relative value of life we are discussing here. It may also be that they have different views of life than is typical in the west. I don't think it is the case that they don't value human life at all. One thing that is safe to say is that some people in all parts of the world adopt belief systems which make it easier for them to take lives, or approve of taking lives, of people outside of that group or belief system. Often these beliefs are religious. Sometimes they are political or nationalistic beliefs. What is hard to do is separate our beliefs about reality from reality. Killing a person or fighting a war may in fact be justified in certain circumstances. However, when we strip away beliefs that don't have a solid basis from the decision, it is safe to say we would find fewer circumstances where killing is appropriate. The death penalty mentioned elsewhere in the thread is one such area. The perceived need to kill criminals is usually just that. A perceived need. The actual need is much harder to demonstrate. But it is damn hard to strip away the veneer of beliefs from decision making processes. All of us have beliefs that affect our decisions on all sorts of things. There may or may not be a sound basis for those beliefs. And when you look at things on the grand scale of a country or "society" collective goofy beliefs fought over in the political process can make things all the more irrational.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Middle East countries don't share Western values in that they don't seem to place as high a value on life for one thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its important to be clear about what "Western values" means here. I would say that, from a historical perspective, the countries of the west seem to have placed fairly little value on human life. The process by which a few hundred principalities were consolidated into the European state system was a very violent one. The further extension of the powers of these states over the world system in the colonial period was unspeakably bloody and rapacious. And then came the 20th century, with its two horrific world wars and other associated atrocities.

So the idea seems pretty shaky that there is a greater Western respect for life that has cultural and traditional roots, whether in the enlightenment or in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What we might say is that, hopefully, we have learned something from the nightmare of history and that current widespread liberal attitudes show a bit more respect for life on this count. But then again, this may be just a product of the West becoming so rich that states no longer need to compete among themselves for resources in the same fashion.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
L'Enfer, c'est les autres.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree, I think.

Hell, not Heaven, is the ultimate illusion.

************************************************** ****

A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed into an institution.

-Jean-Paul Sartre, on refusing the Nobel Prize, 1964.



Music is essentially useless, as life is.

-George Santayana



The only thing with less meaning than life is the value people place in it.

-Zeno, The Gospel of Zeno.


Omnia mors aequat

[IrishHand]

The total number of "westerners" (meaning North Americans and Europeans) who've died in wars absolutely dwarfs the total number of "easterners". If "respect for life" is interpreted to mean a desire not to kill massive quantities of people for questionable reasons, then I'm afraid we don't exactly lead the pack in that category. Hypocrisy, maybe - since our culture clearly supports the notion that we do indeed have a greater respect for life than those filthy heathens on the other side of the globe...

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The total number of "westerners" (meaning North Americans and Europeans) who've died in wars absolutely dwarfs the total number of "easterners". If "respect for life" is interpreted to mean a desire not to kill massive quantities of people for questionable reasons, then I'm afraid we don't exactly lead the pack in that category. Hypocrisy, maybe - since our culture clearly supports the notion that we do indeed have a greater respect for life than those filthy heathens on the other side of the globe...
...

[/ QUOTE ]

Natch, you never mentioned the 50 million Chinese killed by Mao. Guess that doesn't qualify for inclusion in your statement: 'If "respect for life" is interpreted to mean a desire not to kill massive quantities of people for questionable reasons...'.

Also, you never mentioned the lives lost due to the war we were forced into when Japan attacked us out of the blue one fine day 5 decades ago...and other examples...

Typically IrishHand: slanted, sarcastic, pompous, disparaging, anti-US, anti-Western..and, of course, generally wrong. Welcome back--I wonder how long it will take you to grate everyone here the wrong way this time around. You've already gotten a fine start in that old vein with your recent reply to Kurn--I couldn't have dreamt up a more sarcastic yet innocent-sounding reply than yours if I tried. Guess sarcasm just comes naturally to some people--on the rare occasions I'm sarcastic, such as now, I really have to work at it. Guess we can't all be talented in the same areas though...

[IrishHand]

Ah yes...the tried and tested MMMMM approach of ad hominem attacks when you don't have an actual argument to contribute. But we'll address your vague factual refereces first...

[ QUOTE ]
Natch, you never mentioned the 50 million Chinese killed by Mao.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never mentioned any specific group killed by any specific person. No need to get excited about any one in particular. My point, as I thought was pretty obvious, wasn't that non-westerners were a 100 on the "respect for life" scale while westerners were 0 - it's just that the opposite clearly isn't the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you never mentioned the lives lost due to the war we were forced into when Japan attacked us out of the blue one fine day 5 decades ago...

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any historical background in this matter, or do you simply adhere to all official lines when it comes to the past? There was no "attack out of the blue" at Pearl Harbor. While it was certainly the case that the military installations there weren't as well-prepared as they should have been, there were a laundry list of reasons for this. The US had engaged in progressively more aggressive and provocative actions towards Japan throughout 1939 and 1940, most importantly their decision to stop shipping oil to Japan. It wasn't like the US was sitting around thinking life was nice. War with Japan was imminent. It was only a question of when and how. Given Japan's history in the years leading up to 1941 and their obvious admiration of German successes in Poland, France and Russia, it was pretty irresponsible not to be more prepared for a surprise attack. (See John Toland's "Rising Sun" for a more complete analysis of the events leading up to the US/Japan portion of WWII.)

And lest ye get your panties all in a ruffle, I'm not saying the US was the culprit in initiating the conflict in the Atlantic, merely pointing out that they weren't anywhere near an innocent victim in that theater any more than the Poles, for instance, were innocent victims of German aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
Typically IrishHand: slanted, sarcastic, pompous, disparaging, anti-US, anti-Western..and, of course, generally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people, it seems, never got beyond the name-calling method of debate adhered to by the most intellectual of grade-school bullies. Whenever you want to actually read what I wrote and respond to it with either facts or logic, I'll be thrilled!

I'll even make it easy for you:
(1) Someone posted that "often Middle East countries don't share Western values in that they don't seem to place as high a value on life for one thing", which struck me as an absolutely ridiculous statement given western history. Of course, I also understand where this statement is coming from given the culture we live in.
(2) I made the point that far more westerners have died in wars than easterners and concluded that it can hardly be argued that Western culture is the leader in "respect for life" if that's a criteria (using the unargued conclusion that wars constitute "killing massive quantities of people for questionable reasons").
(3) You contribute that I'm: "slanted, sarcastic, pompous, disparaging, anti-US, anti-Western..and, of course, generally wrong" while referencing two specific incidents that do nothing to address the general point I made. (Unless of course your goal was to make the obvious point that yes, both westerners and easterners engage in atrocious, murderous behavior. Of course, that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

Seriously...I'm excited to see if you can break free of the name-calling and irrational prejudices you have. It would be simply delightful to have you participate in a more meaninngful manner. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Irish

[MMMMMM]

You have always posted here for the sole purpose, IMO, of expressing your views in the most deliberately obnoxious manner possible while still retaining the required modicum of civility. So call my attack on you ad hominem if you wish: I'm not trying to win any arguments with you, just telling you what I (and some other posters) think of you. And that's putting it fairly mildly.

There is no real point in debating with anyone whose purpose is to use the debate as a platform for being an ass, so as before, I'll henceforth leave you to your own devices.