|
June 21, 2006
Emotional relativism
Reading about how some sick maniac got his jollies by screwing a four month old Argentine dogo puppy really pissed me off. I lived in Argentina for a summer when I was a teen, and I remember the dogo breed. They're in the Molosser group, and are closely related to the American Pit Bull Terrier. Appearance-wise, they're virtually indistinguishable from any large white pit bull. I feel terrible for the puppy, and I hope the guy is sent to the joint. If I were a cruel and vindictive bastard, I'd hope that whatever joint it was had guards known for sleeping on duty. But I guess that would make me no better than he, so I should just hope he gets whatever maximum prison time the law in Florida allows. Considering the horrendous nature of what happened to Privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker in Iraq, my concerns about the dog might seem awfully misplaced. I don't think they are misplaced, though, because the dynamics are different. (Hence this post.) In this country something can be done to people caught committing gruesome crimes. Retribution in Iraq, however, can take years. And it isn't made any easier by the people who make more noise about mishandled Korans than brutal, premeditated torture and deliberate mutilation. People are horrified to read about how the bodies of these men were mutilated, but what's the remedy? Win the damned war. People who don't like the war tend to see the remedy as withdrawal from Iraq, even though that's no remedy at all. When a sicko is caught torturing an animal, though, it's easy to get worked up and make pronouncements about what should be done to him. Unlike the sickos who tortured the two Americans, no one is going to defend a dog torturer. No one is going to suggest that the dog shouldn't have been there in the first place. That the dog torturer was provoked. That dogs of such a breed have been known to attack people. People are free to become universally, completely, outraged over what happened to that puppy. But try getting completely outraged over what happened to those two young Americans, and things might get a little more complicated. Why? Sickening as it is to contemplate the torture of a puppy for pleasure, in logic it has to be remembered that this does not even begin to approach the premeditated evil of torturing human beings to death -- not to make them talk, but for no reason other than political retaliation. (A strategy accomplished by media manipulation, of course). So why is it that so many people would consider the dog torture more heinous? Is it emotion? Well, I'm emotional, and I was emotionally outraged especially when I saw the picture of the puppy. But I also have rational outrage. This allows me to recognize the emotions I feel over seeing the puppy's picture, but remember that there are greater evils which are more deserving of my outrage -- my feelings notwithstanding. If some asshole said "SCREW THE PUPPY!" most of us would be outraged. But when someone says the same thing about mutilated Americans, that's considered in many quarters to be little more than an emotional response by a leading netroots activist. Not that I expect a similar smear to be uttered against these two soldiers. But I do expect to hear more voices in support of their torturers than in support of the man who tortured a dog. That's probably because the former are not "terrorists"; instead they are "the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win." (Who'd say that about the guy who tortured a dog?) MORE: Via Pajamas Media, Michael Yon expresses the hope that revulsion can lead to a redoubled commitment: Our soldiers apparently were horribly tortured, and bombs were emplaced to kill those who would find them. In the days ahead as we learn the details, I hope that Americans can muster the same incredible courage I have seen ordinary Iraqis rise to on countless occasions. If we do, then despite the reflexive pull back caused by the horror of these murders, our commitment to put down the terrorists who committed these murders will be redoubled.I couldn't agree more. posted by Eric on 06.21.06 at 05:33 PM
Comments
dsfdw · June 22, 2006 12:37 AM Jon, you're right about the animal distinction. I think there's an antisocial element at work which simultaneously heightens culpability when a crime is committed against an animal, while diminishing culpability when a crime is committed against a human. What else would explain asking about "root causes" only when crimes are committed against humans? Interestingly, many violent psychopaths started out by harming animals. Had they been caught early, the impulse to punish them would have been stronger than when they "moved up" to humans. I see no explanation for this other than antisocial thinking. Eric Scheie · June 22, 2006 10:05 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
To some extent, you are correct. But, I also think you are ignoring another item which has an important role. Namely, the fact that, on the one hand, humans were the victims, and on the other, an animal (a cute puppy, in point of fact).
Even if we had two cases here in America, there'd be more people asking about root causes in the human case than the animal case, I'm absolutely sure.
People don't really value human life, frankly.
Many people said "Tookie" was redeemed for killing four people in cold blood. Why? He wrote some kid's books. Some were just saying we shouldn't kill him; fair enough, though I disagree. Others, however, were saying we should free the man.
Just to be clear, a few kid's books=four dead human beings.
But, if he had killed a puppy, Jesse Jackson would have asked to hold the needle.