Ericast 166 - Reflections on Killing
I had a great episode on deck on the topic of customer service... but when news breaks, you'll find it discussed several days later on the Ericast.
So, let's talk about Osama Bin Laden. Remember to call 206-339-3742 with any comments.
Show notes:
Universal Life Ethic = let's not kill people. a.k.a. "consistent life ethic" (a term that implies that others aren't consistent, which I don't think is fair) a.k.a the "seamless garment ethic" (which is a bit too cutesy and unclear for me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic
On Facebook I've got friends quoting Martin Luther King Jr. about not celebrating death:
There's a fairly complex or "cold" framework I'm coming from: This is a mathematical equation at this point. We can explore the facts as they've been presented over the past decade and don't have to ask, Did Bin Laden ever exist? Did he did years ago only to be replaced by a double? Did he do what we said he did? Is he dead now? How was he killed? etc.
So we have to take our facts at face value. "The variable 'UBL' was responsible for X and was killed in Y manner."
On that (known unrepentant behavior of targeting innocents, etc.)... if anyone deserved to die, wouldn't you say he did?
And from a personal integrity standpoint, if we object or have concerns with Osama Bin Ladin's killing... how much objecting are we doing to executions in Texas? Or other cases of intentional killing that are much, much less clear-cut than this one?
For more on "killing" vs. other kinds of deaths deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
(Technical podcast note: I dropped the intro/outro music by -6db so that it didn't obnoxiously blast out your ears since my voice is a bit more subdued in this melancholy episode. Does it sound better than previous episodes?)
So, let's talk about Osama Bin Laden. Remember to call 206-339-3742 with any comments.
Show notes:
Universal Life Ethic = let's not kill people. a.k.a. "consistent life ethic" (a term that implies that others aren't consistent, which I don't think is fair) a.k.a the "seamless garment ethic" (which is a bit too cutesy and unclear for me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic
On Facebook I've got friends quoting Martin Luther King Jr. about not celebrating death:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
There's a fairly complex or "cold" framework I'm coming from: This is a mathematical equation at this point. We can explore the facts as they've been presented over the past decade and don't have to ask, Did Bin Laden ever exist? Did he did years ago only to be replaced by a double? Did he do what we said he did? Is he dead now? How was he killed? etc.
So we have to take our facts at face value. "The variable 'UBL' was responsible for X and was killed in Y manner."
On that (known unrepentant behavior of targeting innocents, etc.)... if anyone deserved to die, wouldn't you say he did?
And from a personal integrity standpoint, if we object or have concerns with Osama Bin Ladin's killing... how much objecting are we doing to executions in Texas? Or other cases of intentional killing that are much, much less clear-cut than this one?
For more on "killing" vs. other kinds of deaths deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
(Technical podcast note: I dropped the intro/outro music by -6db so that it didn't obnoxiously blast out your ears since my voice is a bit more subdued in this melancholy episode. Does it sound better than previous episodes?)
posted by emlarson at
10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home