From wealth to power to peace, our discussions this past week have produced intriguing discussions. We've seen that changing sides is okay (as most people wrote blogs about how pursuing wealth is bad and proceeded to contradict themselves during friday's discussion.) as it makes discussion far more interesting - as does arguing for something completely absurd; genocide, for example.
In a normal classroom situation, anyone seriously/honestly arguing pro-genocide would be ostracized - as I believe it should be. However, UC World Politics is, as we know, by no means a 'normal' class. So, bear with me momentarily as I step into the hypothetical realm - I in no way think that genocide is right or good, however, I would like to pursue for blogging's sake that opinion.
Several interesting arguments arose. We, as a society, have been told since birth that killing is bad - espcecially discriminating against and killing a specific group of people. What if we were taught 'survival of the fittest'? If one group is harming others, is bringing the rest of the world down, why not get rid of them? James discussed details of such on his blog.
If we could have prevented the Holocaust by killing Hitler and the Nazis before their political power spiraled, should we? To answer no is absurd as preventing such a horrendous act would clearly be a good choice; to answer yes supports the genocide of a political group. I feel that we don't often think of both sides of the situation. Which is the worse evil - killing the violent few in order to save the masses or allowing the few to exterminate the many?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment