Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Humanitarian Ethics

The constant discussion of Christianity within chapters 10 and 11, have raised questions about humanitarian ethics. Discussions about the torture and maiming of Christians have led me to ponder what a true humanitarian ethics is. It is never okay to murder or torture individuals in the name of religion, yet throughout religion's history this has always happened. Whether it was King James, the Crusades, or the Gladiator battles at Rome. It would seem that religion seems to cause more problems than it solves. All of the bloodshed and violence is deeply troubling to me. Furthermore, is it best for one to suffer for the well-being of others, or is it perhaps best to challenge the powers that be in order to have your voice heard, and does that mean that violence is necessary? Does ethics have to have a component of religion incorporated?

Therefore, how can we define humanitarian ethics? It would seem that most people take an extreme objective approach, assuming that one type of morals is best for society, yet the reality is that ethics is so individual and subjective that there is no way to know. Can we assume that it simply means that it is perhaps a utilitarian approach, meaning the greatest good for the greatest number, and that sometimes there needs to be bloodshed in order to justify. It seems though that the more that I type only more and more questions and definitions need to be defined. Each character in the book has seemed to fall into the same trap, which possibly means that this may be a normal human experience and problem. I would be interested to know the thoughts of the rest of the group.

1 comment:

  1. It's hard to look at our history and not conclude that violence and intolerance are deeply embedded in our nature. On the other hand, it's getting better. We have to look away from the headlines and the news cycle to appreciate that, but taking the long view is more encouraging than not. See Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels"...