I know this has been said before, but it bears more attention

[Craig234]

There is such an opportunity for people to learn something about morality from this:

People are capable of looking at murder as wrong. At being horrified by it.

Yet, it continues to happen over and over - so clearly, people are also capable of other views of it. Of approving, of being indifferent. If we want more of people being opposed to it, we should try to learn something about why people can have a different view, and how we can help change that.

Various situations - the Vietnam war, the Iraq war for example - from a US perspective have been about 'partisan politics' to some degree - trying to tie support for a war to 'patriotism', issues about even being informed or caring about the people harmed. You'd have some people usually called the 'left' trying to get other people to view the wars as bad, without a lot of success.

But this war by Putin on Ukraine is a great opportunity to help people recognize how that mentality works - how perhaps they themselves are 'enablers' of murder, indifferent if not supporting it, in ways they couldn't appreciate, but seeing it in another country can help them appreciate it more.

We see 80% of Russians supporting Putin and the war, repeating his propaganda - just as we had many Americans who have supported or been indifferent to violence in other cases.

We look at the devastation in Ukraine with great sympathy as we should - but it forces the question, about why most Americans didn't have that sympathy when it came to other victims of violence.

We demand Russians recognize right from wrong and stand for right, or be complicit - yet we don't do that for Americans.

It's made easier for Russians to approve of the war with biased coverage; it's easier to see in their case. But in the US, the victims of violence - those Vietnamese, those Iraqis, Central Americans and many others - got nearly zero media coverage, and most Americans wanted it that way. If the media had 'told the truth' and covered the victims, they'd have reacted with outrage at the media.

A point is how easy it is for people to be blinded to murder by 'their side'. You can recognize it when you are targeted; you can recognize it when you are sympathetic to the victims - but how much murder is viewed through a lens blinding people to its wrong?

Take Vietnam - was there a thousand times the coverage of the question, 'are we winning' compared to the question, 'what harm is being done'? Probably not - it was probably much more than a thousand times.

This war on Ukraine is a rare chance to help people learn about this effect, that is the norm and has been in the US. Should we say, 'we don't care about the Ukrainians harmed'? No? Yet, we've said just that in case after case after case. People should learn from this, about a need for a better understanding of the wrongs and harms or war, the ease of 'looking the other way'.

I'm not sure how we help people do that - I don't really see the media recognizing this issue that they are such a big part of. Imagine a Russian saying 'I don't care about the war', or being happy to see Ukrainians killed as a 'win' for their country; think about the condemnation you feel toward them; and understand how similar that is to so many Americans for so many situations.

We haven't had as good a lesson as the Ukraine war I can think of. And I don't see a lot of people recognizing this. It's so easy to limit the outrage to Ukraine. And this is why murder isn't so easily condemned by so many.

 

[Atreus21]

People are capable of looking at murder as wrong. At being horrified by it.

At risk of derailing the thread, we view abortion as murder and are horrified by it. Democrats don't, and aren't. That's one potential sticking point.

Yet, it continues to happen over and over - so clearly, people are also capable of other views of it. Of approving, of being indifferent. If we want more of people being opposed to it, we should try to learn something about why people can have a different view, and how we can help change that.

If it ought to be changed. Yes I agree.

Various situations - the Vietnam war, the Iraq war for example - from a US perspective have been about 'partisan politics' to some degree - trying to tie support for a war to 'patriotism', issues about even being informed or caring about the people harmed. You'd have some people usually called the 'left' trying to get other people to view the wars as bad, without a lot of success.

But this war by Putin on Ukraine is a great opportunity to help people recognize how that mentality works - how perhaps they themselves are 'enablers' of murder, indifferent if not supporting it, in ways they couldn't appreciate, but seeing it in another country can help them appreciate it more.

We see 80% of Russians supporting Putin and the war, repeating his propaganda - just as we had many Americans who have supported or been indifferent to violence in other cases.

We look at the devastation in Ukraine with great sympathy as we should - but it forces the question, about why most Americans didn't have that sympathy when it came to other victims of violence

We demand Russians recognize right from wrong and stand for right, or be complicit - yet we don't do that for Americans.

Of course we do. We don't tolerate war crimes from the American military. And even if we fail, no American born would say we should.

It's made easier for Russians to approve of the war with biased coverage; it's easier to see in their case. But in the US, the victims of violence - those Vietnamese, those Iraqis, Central Americans and many others - got nearly zero media coverage, and most Americans wanted it that way. If the media had 'told the truth' and covered the victims, they'd have reacted with outrage at the media.

A point is how easy it is for people to be blinded to murder by 'their side'. You can recognize it when you are targeted; you can recognize it when you are sympathetic to the victims - but how much murder is viewed through a lens blinding people to its wrong?

Agree. It takes an unusually strong person to recognize wrongdoing from their own nation, no less than recognizing it in themselves.

Take Vietnam - was there a thousand times the coverage of the question, 'are we winning' compared to the question, 'what harm is being done'? Probably not - it was probably much more than a thousand times.

To me the relevant question is, "Is/was the harm worth it?" That's a very difficult question to answer. Was it worth it in Vietnam? Probably not. Korea? Probably, and I think SK would agree. Iraq, hard to say.

I'm not sure how we help people do that - I don't really see the media recognizing this issue that they are such a big part of. Imagine a Russian saying 'I don't care about the war', or being happy to see Ukrainians killed as a 'win' for their country; think about the condemnation you feel toward them; and understand how similar that is to so many Americans for so many situations.

Well, describe Ukrainians. Civilians? I doubt Russian civilians support the wanton killing of non-combatants. If they do, that's clearly evil. Ukrainian military? For a Russian to celebrate their defeat doesn't strike me as immoral.

We haven't had as good a lesson as the Ukraine war I can think of. And I don't see a lot of people recognizing this. It's so easy to limit the outrage to Ukraine. And this is why murder isn't so easily condemned by so many.

I've recognized it, though I've not spoken of it. Each of us has his or her biases. I'm biased in favor of the United States being fundamentally a force for good in the world, and it would take quite a lot of atrocity to dislodge me from that position. It's tied up, as with most people, in my hope and faith that the United States is good, and is only grudgingly swayed by evidence opposing it. I think most peoples' minds are arrayed similarly. That is, they orient themselves to the world first according to general impressions, not facts, logic, or evidence.

 

[CaughtInThe]

there are people like Mother Theresa (or someone with a huge heart) and there are people like Hitler (or someone who enjoys killing/is evil).

AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.


that's the problem. the in between. the ones that lean to the side of just not caring if living and breathing humans kill living and breathing humans.


it always makes me wonder who raised those people.

 

[Jkca1]

Let's agree that morality is a made up idea. Put a democrat in a room with a republican and see what their joint definition of morality is. As a US citizen I would like to be able to claim we always act in the best interest of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, history has shown the truth to be much different. I don't know what it will take for the world to not only agree to a definition of morality but to enforce regardless of who(m) violates it but we are nowhere close today to getting that done.

 

[Craig234]

At risk of derailing the thread, we view abortion as murder and are horrified by it. Democrats don't, and aren't. That's one potential sticking point.

You're right, that that is really a different topic, whatever one's opinion.

Of course we do. We don't tolerate war crimes from the American military. And even if we fail, no American born would say we should.

That's only partly right. Putin is SAYING they don't do war crimes, that they are not harming any civilians, and so on. Showing some 'concern' for the issue by saying that. While they actually do the wrongs, and most Russians say that saying they don't is enough.

Which is a lot more similar to the US than many would like to admit. We SAY we're against it. We have laws on the books. Yet the facts are not so 'nice', and most Americans 'turn a blind eye' to the topic. It's not investigated generally, not reported generally, and people don't want or demand that it is.

There are a few infamous cases. A tiny sliver of war crimes in Vietnam were uncovered in Vietnam at My Lai - by Seymour Hersh. There was one person sort of scapegoated, very little punishment. It became something of a partisan issue, with some criticizing the war crimes and some criticizing the reporting and criticism of them.

Iraq gave us examples - such as waterboarding and other torture, and the abuses at Abu Ghraib which were leaked. If not for leaks, we wouldn't even know about them, and they were done. Similarly, they received relatively mild punishments of scapegoats, no one higher up, and became something of partisan issues with a lot of 'who cares'.

There's a lot of lip service about opposing war crimes, but that's a lot of what it is, with policy, fact and enforcement short of the words. Certainly, the government doesn't air footage of war crimes inviting the public to cheer them - it covers them up and claims they didn't happen and to condemn them if they did.

But that's not saying a lot. It's actually part of an offensive to claim moral high ground, rightly or wrongly. Hitler hid his death camps, also. I'm just saying we don't really deserve to casually claim we're perfect on the issue. It's good that we DO have some opposition to war crimes, do take some measures to prevent them, but the record is mixed.

Finally, there are Americans who CHEER them. Not most, thankfully, I think, but a sizeable minority. I can think of a lot of Americans would not only say they were thrilled about, say, waterboarding; uninterested in if the person turned out to be 'innocent' as long as they were Muslim; but often called for far more forms of torture.

To me the relevant question is, "Is/was the harm worth it?" That's a very difficult question to answer. Was it worth it in Vietnam? Probably not. Korea? Probably, and I think SK would agree. Iraq, hard to say.

Before that question, you need people to know the facts and care about the harm.

A rough estimate of 2 million Vietnamese were kill in that war. It's hard to find mention of them in US media coverage. When villages were burned to the ground - not worth a mention, and a heavy bias toward supporting it if it was. So the general view was either disinterest or support. I'd suggest that seems to still be the case.

And that's a lesson Ukraine offers. When we look at the horrors of Ukrainians killed, thinking of the Vietnamese killed in our wrong war of aggression - however much people happily accepts claims otherwise, just as Russians happily claims Ukraine is being liberated - and that there were far more in our case. And noting how for 50 years we haven't really cared much about it.

 

[Craig234]

Well, describe Ukrainians. Civilians? I doubt Russian civilians support the wanton killing of non-combatants. If they do, that's clearly evil. Ukrainian military? For a Russian to celebrate their defeat doesn't strike me as immoral.

I was referring to civilians, but I disagree with you about the military. The Ukrainian military are innocent people being murdered also. Supporting that IS immoral. You seem to have a bias that once a war happens, assume it's legitimate and all the military casualties are justified. No. When a war is wrong, the military killed are murders.

I've recognized it, though I've not spoken of it. Each of us has his or her biases. I'm biased in favor of the United States being fundamentally a force for good in the world, and it would take quite a lot of atrocity to dislodge me from that position.

I think it's a mistake, if a common one, to want to find a 'label' of good or bad. The US has done great things and terrible things. I think we'd agree we WANT the US to be a force for good - that it's critically important that it is. There are forces - especially China's government - that it's a lot easier to put a label on, and create a great need for a power to limit their harm.

In theory the US could be a force for great harm; we need to keep it a force for good. And doing that needs people to care about it, and for decades most Americans have fallen very short on that, and that's my point about lessons from Ukraine to help us make the US better, seeing a lot of terrible similarities in some things about Russia.

It's a given Americans will THINK the US is a good force. Ukraine shows us Russians thinking that Russia is.