Why do people care more about someone's side than about that persons morals?

[BornInMarch]

In a previous post, I asked why people have a tendency to support rebels even when they commit atrocities. The responses I got caused me to think.

When judging whether a historical figure was good or evil, people should be asking “what was his moral behavior like?”. Instead, people ask “what side did he fight for/against?”.
And if s/he fought for a cause you approve of, than that person will usually be supported no matter what atrocities s/he committed.

For example, some people think Nat Turner was a hero for fighting against slavery; this belief is despite the fact that he murdered woman and children in cold blood and that his rebellion only succeeded in making the lives of slaves worse (if you count the backlash that flared up after his rebellion, than he is responsible hundreds of deaths).

Harriet Tubman would never have murdered children, nor would Martin Luther King, nor would Gandhi. All three people supported good causes without terrorist methods.

Why do people care more about the cause someone supports than the methods they used to support that cause?

 

[Exiled_Child]

In a previous post, I asked why people have a tendency to support rebels even when they commit atrocities. The responses I got caused me to think.

When judging whether a historical figure was good or evil, people should be asking “what was his moral behavior like?”. Instead, people ask “what side did he fight for/against?”.
And if s/he fought for a cause you approve of, than that person will usually be supported no matter what atrocities s/he committed.

For example, some people think Nat Turner was a hero for fighting against slavery; this belief is despite the fact that he murdered woman and children in cold blood and that his rebellion only succeeded in making the lives of slaves worse (if you count the backlash that flared up after his rebellion, than he is responsible hundreds of deaths).

Harriet Tubman would never have murdered children, nor would Martin Luther King, nor would Gandhi. All three people supported good causes without terrorist methods.

Why do people care more about the cause someone supports than the methods they used to support that cause?

I wish I could tell you. I’ve been asking myself the same thing all my life.

 

[ringil]

Some folks around here praise Franco and I don’t get it either.

 

[John_Lazarus]

Why do people care more about the cause someone supports than the methods they used to support that cause?

I think because people have the mentality of the ends justifying the means – or, “it’s all right when we do it, because we’re the ‘good guys’”. The cause ennobles or whitewashes the deeds – or at least allows the apologist to handwave it.

What they fail to remember is that if we’re the “good guys”, we cannot obtain good through evil means, and the reason we don’t do evil is because we’re the “good guys”.

This is one of the problems that can arise when one enters into a conflict when one believes one’s cause is just – it may lead one to believe that one may do anything, no matter how reprehensible, to advance that cause. And as for the opponents with their “unjust” cause, well, anything they do is tainted by their unjustness, and any immoral acts are magnified.

Sorry if this is disjointed – there are a lot of rocks in my stream of consciousness.

 

[on_the_hill]

Some folks around here praise Franco

And Putin, too.

 

[ringil]

And Putin, too.

I was thinking that as well, but tried to keep it in the nearly-universally identified as heinous-dictator type.

Regarding Putin- some will look the other way regarding his multiple questionable policies and dictatorial approach because he has expressed opposition to homosexuals.

 

[theCrow]

Quite simply, because there are always innocent people on both SIDES in a war/conflict. It’s not always pure good vs pure evil.

Whose side were the innocent Japanese people on when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

American revolution?

Civil War?

When innocent people/women/children are killed, they will be against your side, and not care if you have good morals. Sadly, that is what is happening on both sides in Israel/Hamas, which ends up having both sides hate each other even more. An eye for an eye make the world go blind.

 

[BornInMarch]

Quite simply, because there are always innocent people on both SIDES in a war/conflict. It’s not always pure good vs pure evil.

Whose side were the innocent Japanese people on when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

American revolution?

Civil War?

When innocent people/women/children are killed, they will be against your side, and not care if you have good morals. Sadly, that is what is happening on both sides in Israel/Hamas, which ends up having both sides hate each other even more. An eye for an eye make the world go blind.

I feel I should clarify something. Terrorism is when someone intentionally kills innocent people.

During World War Two, the Americans only dropped the A-bomb because the only alternative was a land invasion which would have resulted in tens of millions of dead on both sides. Even then, the Americans not only gave a warning first but also made sure not to drop the bomb on a major city (like Tokyo). The Americans chose the option with the minimum death toll.

Likewise, George Washington never sanctioned the murder of civilians. After the battle of valley forge, the hessian and british captured there were taken prisoner.
A leader like Ho Chi Minh would have just executed all the prisoners.

During the civil war, Sherman’s March to the sea destroyed a lot of property but actually murdered very few, if any, civilians.
Compare that to how the Confederates treated their POWs (look up Andersonville Prison for more details).

Again, the Hamas tactic of using civilians as human shields is unforgivable.

 

[clintonm]

… nor would Gandhi. All three people supported good causes without terrorist methods.

Point of order about Gandhi. He was the opposite of a good man in christian terms. He was okay with black oppression in South Africa, he slept with his grandneices, and he approved of the slave caste system taught by Hindus and he subverted the British government for his own ends.

 

[BornInMarch]

Point of order about Gandhi. He was the opposite of a good man in christian terms. He was okay with black oppression in South Africa, he slept with his grandneices, and he approved of the slave caste system taught by Hindus and he subverted the British government for his own ends.

It’s not that simple.

Gandhi only disliked black people when he was starting out; once he learned more about Indian culture he realized how flawed that racist worldview was.

He never had sex with his grandnieces. While he may have shared a bed with them for a short period of time, it was probably innocent as far as his culture was concerned. Just because two people are in the same bed does not mean anything sexual is happening.

He actually fought against the caste system, and wanted untouchables to be treated like human beings.

He didn’t subvert the british government; during the First World War he encouraged Indians to join the british army out of the mistaken belief that it would make Britain respect me enough to treat them as equals (as apposed to subjects). When this failed, he used nonviolent methods to bring about Indian independence. In fact, when his protesters lynched some police officers, he actually went on a fast and threatened to starve himself to death if they didn’t stop rioting.

 

[on_the_hill]

I was thinking that as well, but tried to keep it in the nearly-universally identified as heinous-dictator type.

Regarding Putin- some will look the other way regarding his multiple questionable policies and dictatorial approach because he has expressed opposition to homosexuals.

Bingo.

 

[clintonm]

Gandhi was a well-known sexual deviant in his day. He slept with his grandneices. He told them that it was to do expiriments in spirituality. Gandhi was a cult-leader and a creep. This is not the thread to debate Gandhi, I was just pointing out that he isn’t the best example you could have used in your original post.

edit: corrected spelling

 

[theCrow]

Don’t diss Gandhi.
He was a true hero, peacemaker and a beacon of light!

---

“Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was a visionary whose spiritual maturity still shines like a beacon in the night. He is my hero and I frequently visit a statue of him in Union Square off 14th Street in New York. Others who also honor Gandhi have put garlands of flowers around his neck. The statue reveals the vulnerability in his frail body but I can also see his determination and perseverance in his stance, striding ahead with a walking stick. I am reminded of Gandhi’s desire to give of himself completely in service of others.”

 

[theCrow]

Gandhi was a well-known sexual deviant in his day. He slept with his grandneices. He told them that it was to do expiriments in spirituality. Gandhi was a cult-leader and a creep. This is not the thread to debate Gandhi, I was just pointing out that he isn’t the best example you could have used in your original post.

edit: corrected spelling

Gandhi’s philosophy is based on three principles: non-violence (ahimsa), the fight for truth (satyagraha) and individual and political freedom (swaraj). In his fight for peace he sought advice from the teachings of Buddha and the Prophet Mohammed. Gandhi also believed that pure faith could unite people of different religions. “I can see that in the midst of death, life persists. In the midst of untruth, truth persists. In the midst of darkness, light persists. Hence, I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is the supreme good.”

Gandhi, Jesus, John Lennon, Brandon Lee - My heroes!

 

[BornInMarch]

Gandhi, Jesus, John Lennon, Brandon Lee - My heroes!

Why John Lennon? Didn’t he beat his wife?

 

[Hobbes42]

I feel I should clarify something. Terrorism is when someone intentionally kills innocent people.

During World War Two, the Americans only dropped the A-bomb because the only alternative was a land invasion which would have resulted in tens of millions of dead on both sides. Even then, the Americans not only gave a warning first but also made sure not to drop the bomb on a major city (like Tokyo). The Americans chose the option with the minimum death toll.

Likewise, George Washington never sanctioned the murder of civilians. After the battle of valley forge, the hessian and british captured there were taken prisoner.
A leader like Ho Chi Minh would have just executed all the prisoners.

During the civil war, Sherman’s March to the sea destroyed a lot of property but actually murdered very few, if any, civilians.
Compare that to how the Confederates treated their POWs (look up Andersonville Prison for more details).

Again, the Hamas tactic of using civilians as human shields is unforgivable.

Erm… the atomic weapons were used for a variety of reasons. Loss of life being a negligible one. It stands to history that some of the stronger reasons were to demonstrate and test a new weapon, and because in the words of a DOD official “We spent all this money on it”. It took 10% of the war budget, the Pentagon didn’t want to be denied use of their toy. Loss of life would’ve been easily prevented with a total blockade and negotiations.
For other statements on it, see Eisenhowers opinions, MacArthers views on the bombings, and a plethora of military commanders at that time.

Targeting civilians is targeting civilians-no matter if “the good guys” or “the bad guys” do it, as a cause is explicitly evil if it engenders slaughtering civilians.

What was that about the end not justifying the means again? By your definition the US is a terrorist state. (Dresden, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Native Americans)

 

[BornInMarch]

Erm… the atomic weapons were used for a variety of reasons. Loss of life being a negligible one. It stands to history that some of the stronger reasons were to demonstrate and test a new weapon, and because in the words of a DOD official “We spent all this money on it”. It took 10% of the war budget, the Pentagon didn’t want to be denied use of their toy. Loss of life would’ve been easily prevented with a total blockade and negotiations.
For other statements on it, see Eisenhowers opinions, MacArthers views on the bombings, and a plethora of military commanders at that time.

Targeting civilians is targeting civilians-no matter if “the good guys” or “the bad guys” do it, as a cause is explicitly evil if it engenders slaughtering civilians.

What was that about the end not justifying the means again? By your definition the US is a terrorist state. (Dresden, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Native Americans)

Blockade would have done nothing at all, as Japan was already for all intents and purposes blockaded (they were the last Axis nation still functioning). The Emperor would not negotiate; the U.S. gave him a chance to surrender first and he still refused.
The ONLY alternative was a full on landing invasion which would have resulted in so many people dying that the death toll of the atomic bombs would look trivial in comparison.

If the U.S. just wanted to “play with their toys”, than the Cold War would have been called ‘World War Three’.

Oversimplifying things is insulting.

 

[magnet]

Blockade would have done nothing at all, as Japan was already for all intents and purposes blockaded (they were the last Axis nation still functioning). The Emperor would not negotiate; the U.S. gave him a chance to surrender first and he still refused.
The ONLY alternative was a full on landing invasion which would have resulted in so many people dying that the death toll of the atomic bombs would look trivial in comparison.

If the U.S. just wanted to “play with their toys”, than the Cold War would have been called ‘World War Three’.

Oversimplifying things is insulting.

More people were killed in conventional bombing of Japan than both atomic bombs combined. When B-29’s dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo and other major cities, whole cities burned to the ground. The death toll in Tokyo from incendiaries was about 100,000.

Blockading Japan would be very difficult because its land consists of several islands surrounded by water and has numerous bays. Look how difficult it was for the Germans to blockade Britain in WW2. Germany on the other hand was easily blockaded in WW1, because it is essentially a mid-continent area with only a few ports in the north.

The mentality of the Japanese in those years favored starving themselves to death rather than surrendering. Japan had a thriving agricultural and fishing industry. It also owned Korea which had lots of food. Although many people would suffer and die from starvation, they would not cave in.

 

[BornInMarch]

More people were killed in conventional bombing of Japan than both atomic bombs combined. When B-29’s dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo and other major cities, whole cities burned to the ground. The death toll in Tokyo from incendiaries was about 100,000.

Blockading Japan would be very difficult because its land consists of several islands surrounded by water and has numerous bays. Look how difficult it was for the Germans to blockade Britain in WW2. Germany on the other hand was easily blockaded in WW1, because it is essentially a mid-continent area with only a few ports in the north.

The mentality of the Japanese in those years favored starving themselves to death rather than surrendering. Japan had a thriving agricultural and fishing industry. It also owned Korea which had lots of food. Although many people would suffer and die from starvation, they would not cave in.

Those are also good points; in any case it is clear that dropping the atom bomb (thereby demoralizing Japan into surrendering) resulted in a far smaller death toll than not dropping them would have.

 

[clintonm]

It didn’t demoralize them into surrender, unless we are viewing that word differently. Everybody knew that the US invasion plan of the Japanese islands called for the near eradication of the Japanese people, as they had indoctrinated everyone in their society to die for their country. Their plan was to bloody the US so badly that the Americans would no longer have a stomach to fight. The atomic bombs showed them that we could kill them all without losing a single life and that their defense strategy was useless. Unfortunately, many many innocent Japanese lost their lives because their government and their Emperor Worship.