Limits are abstract, so why do they hinder us?
Whoever said war is the lesser of two evils (Jeane Kirkpatrick) obviously limits himself to one half of his brain, most likely the “lesser” half at that, because he only makes two unsound distinctions; war as an evil, the rest of the world and all possible limits of space as an evil.
War is the lesser of two evils. Following through with my swing, war is one evil, the lesser, what is the other? If the possibilities of filling in the second evil are abounding, shouldn’t the number of evils be equally as abounding?
There is no limit to vocabulary, no limit to weather, nor to friendship. No limit to the means of violence, no limit to the expanse of intelligence, no limit to possibilities. So why is there a limit to evil….why two?
Petrarch says, "Five enemies of peace inhabit with us--avarice, ambition, envy, anger, and pride; if these were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace."
Yup, count them, FIVE.
Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors + 20 toppings
Countries in the world - 193
Time zones - 24
Words for hurricane - 4 as adopted by the American English language
Population of the world - 6,391,281,842
Coffee options - infinite
Evils - 2 ???????????
The lesser of two evils principle was a Cold War era foreign policy tactic used by the U.S. to garner internal support. The Cold War, antiquated, imprudent, inequitable, divided the world into “two evils;” democracy and communism, completely discounting the existence of theocracies, oligarchies, monarchies (constitutional or not,) tribal chiefdoms and a plethora of other political systems.
“Every person takes the limits for their own field of vision for the limits of the world.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
War is the lesser of two evils. Following through with my swing, war is one evil, the lesser, what is the other? If the possibilities of filling in the second evil are abounding, shouldn’t the number of evils be equally as abounding?
There is no limit to vocabulary, no limit to weather, nor to friendship. No limit to the means of violence, no limit to the expanse of intelligence, no limit to possibilities. So why is there a limit to evil….why two?
Petrarch says, "Five enemies of peace inhabit with us--avarice, ambition, envy, anger, and pride; if these were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace."
Yup, count them, FIVE.
Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors + 20 toppings
Countries in the world - 193
Time zones - 24
Words for hurricane - 4 as adopted by the American English language
Population of the world - 6,391,281,842
Coffee options - infinite
Evils - 2 ???????????
The lesser of two evils principle was a Cold War era foreign policy tactic used by the U.S. to garner internal support. The Cold War, antiquated, imprudent, inequitable, divided the world into “two evils;” democracy and communism, completely discounting the existence of theocracies, oligarchies, monarchies (constitutional or not,) tribal chiefdoms and a plethora of other political systems.
“Every person takes the limits for their own field of vision for the limits of the world.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
posted by Chishiki Lauren at 9:30 PM
3 Comments:
i differ in my opinion on the statement that "war is the lesser of two evils" because I am not taking it as literally as you are. I do not think that statement is declaring there to be only 2 evils. I think it is saying that war is an evil, yes, but not as evil as the other option *in the given circumstances.* Thus, the war we are now in may be the lesser evil of the other one, the other one being us being destroyed and run over by terrorists. This of course is up to debate, whether it is better to be offensive or defensive, but I see the statement *in our present circumstances* as saying it is better to suppress our enemies than be suppressed by them. I do not think there is a limit to evils, for I am continually surprised/distressed at the new evils that come to my attention on a daily basis... I don't like war, and in a perfect world, we would never have war. Sadly, this world is not perfect, man is not perfect, thus war becomes a way to deal with it. I'd be a pacifist if I thought it were possible. But sadly, I don't. Perhaps that is my negativity though coming out... ;)
'Thus, the war we are now in may be the lesser evil of the other one, the other one being us being destroyed and run over by terrorists.'But, Kristi, isn't describing the decision to go to war as being a choice between destroying or being destroyed too simple a dilemma? Are there really no good third options, generally speaking as well as in the particular circumstances of the present 'war on terrorism'?
And, Lauren, I have to say it: I think it's tragic that you live on the other side of the planet. I find your indignation terribly attractive ...
Brian, I don't know how you do it. You manage to take my words and make them completely comprehensible. All the stoccato thoughts plaguing my insufficient intelligence, and it just rolls of your tongue. But you've summed up all of my thoughts so eloquently.
Kristi, I don't mean to say that there are simply two evils. But by narrowing our options down to two choices, both evil, aren't we eradicating the existence of "good" options, or at least fighting evil with evil, and is that really the best strategy. Violence begets violence, which, I fear, is a large reason as to why we are in the current situation we are. Let's allow ourselves the possibilitiy of there being a plausible, effective, good option out there.
Post a Comment
<< Home