Heidegger

— Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
> > I’ve been reading this thread, trying to understand the point you
> > are driving at. Is it that every group, nation, and political
> > entity has at some point in the past committed some despicable,
> > terroristic, or immoral act, so therefore they are all guilty?
>
> Ummm … no. The point I’m driving at is how power relations don’t
> intersect with morality, you can get as outraged as you like Pete but
> that will only have an effect if it’s en masse and has an impact on
> the public debate about matters of national unity and security during
> this era of indefinite global war, don’t you think?

I generally agree. Outraged Pete banging on a keyboard probably
doesn’t increase mankind’s collective morality one iota. However,
I’ll hold on to the possibility that Outraged Pete’s blog might
enrage a million readers who then lie down in front of bulldozers
and stop them from rolling over the habitat of some endangered
animal, and so save the animal from extinction. So moral outrage
might make a difference in the real world.

> More or less. And quite apart from whether you think its good to
> murder your neighbours children or not, what do we moderns do if
> predation is already our present and future reality?

Me, I’ve made a personal commitment to not to murder anyone this week.
It’s a start.

So, then your point is that humans-are-predators-deal-with-it, and
you’re trying to convince Anthony of this?

That no one should be condemned for their violent acts, it’s just
their nature (or inherited reality), or–same leveling I think–that
everyone should be condemned?

At least it’s a more interesting thesis than whether 100 people were,
or were not, killed in some village half a century ago.

Posted on Friday, June 2nd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback