3 ms·
At a certain level things like these ask the question what it is to be human, and should we tamper with it because it is perceived as an impediment to our polit
by srean 12y ago
At a certain level things like these ask the question what it is to be human, and should we tamper with it because it is perceived as an impediment to our political goals. Perhaps, one shouldnt be getting into these unnecessary wars in the first place !
A telling anecdote might be the following: before mass extermination had been perfected, a method that used to be followed by the WWII Germans was to machine gun the victims packed in a pit. There have been several letters found to have gone back and forth among the higher ups concerned with the emotional reaction of the underlings doing the actual machine gunning. They considered their emotional reaction to be the principal problem and sought out alternatives, not that the concept of mass extermination itself was the one that was questionable, quite preposterous !
Lest anyone jumps at it, I am by no means making a claim for moral equivalence here.
@PavlovsCat Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. Strange as it may sound coming from someone who harbours anti-war sentiments, I for one support mandatory military service for the reasons you mention. Without it, it is easier for one set of people to encourage war with little risk or cost to them. Or even better, those who are in favor of, or vote for war should be required to take up proportionate risk. But exactly as you said, thing are not simple, there is a thin line between what I proposed just now and war profiteering at a national scale.
- PavlovsCat 12y agoI think you raise a good point, and IIRC during WWI and WWII there was also the issues of some troops finding themselves unable to fire even at enemy soldiers. I agree with you that this is a healthy reaction that should be furthered; but I just mention it because there is no need to fear the Godwin hammer (which is kind of a foam toy anyway). But on the other hand, for therapy, and to help overcome traumata and phobias, I find this interesting. It's another one of those tools that can be used for good and bad, unsurprisingly. I think that yes, killing should hurt, and it should mess people up. But this also goes for the fact that soldiers get messed up for the actions they were enticed or even forced to do by civilians who were mislead by politicians. This should also hurt, and it generally doesn't seem to. I know I did my fair share of blaming soldiers for showing up for wars, but it's just not that simple..
- emotionalcode 12y agoIt begins with assumptions that pretend to take the whole view into context, but do not, as you suggest with the WWII comparison. The side effects are pernicious and systemic. I think the important thing to remember about PTSD and other mental illness - numbing and desensitization are not the same as healing. Whether these things occur as preparation or as treatment; I am not so certain this matters as much. The events still occur. The thoughts and memories still exist. Just because a person can not visibly show an emotional reaction or feel one, does not mean the emotion has vanished, been extinguished, or that the person has somehow been protected. The idea that this is effective preparation can lead to further confusion, both for the individual affected and those observing. I agree with learning a certain kind of preparation up to a degree. I believe doctors need a certain amount of preparation and experience in order to act during crisis. I wish people would put more effort towards creating peace, rather than assuming that war and violence are permanent conditions of the social psyche.