Conversation with a six year old
On May 15, a federal jury sentenced Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to deatlh. After reading this and looking at the photos of this young man I felt an overwhelming sense of sadness: both for the victims of the bombing and Mr. Tsarnaev and his family. Reactions of the victims varied although most seem to concur that justice has been done in finding him guilty and ordering the death penalty. Some suggested that although there is nothing happy about taking someone’s life, justice would have been done. Others suggested that “an eye for an eye” was just.
It is interesting that on the same day the newspaper carried the story of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to impose a fine of nearly $250,000 on Poland for the torture of individuals by the Central intelligence Agency of the United States on its soil. The money will go to the victims of CIA torture, which took place at
an agency black site in Poland. The NPR news report said that,
“The people of Poland are expressing outrage on Friday as news spread that their own government is on the verge of paying more than $250,000 to victims of CIA torture which took place at an agency black site in the country even as the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the crime or take responsibility for the grave human rights abuses that took place under the Bush administration.”
My understanding and memory tells me that both the Bush and Obama administrations have admitted to the use of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques following 9/11, although I could find no specific admission of doing so on Polish soil.
On the Guardian.com site on August 1, 2014, one finds the following:
In some of the most expansive and blunt remarks on the CIA’s program of rendition and detention he has made since coming to office, Obama said the country “crossed a line” as it struggled to react to the threat of further attacks by al-Qaida. However, he also said it was important “not to feel too sanctimonious”, adding that he believed intelligence officials responsible for torturing detainees were working during a period of extraordinary stress and fear.
As I often do, I thought about attempting to explain the difference between the three acts to a six year old. The three acts to which I am referring are:
· The bombing of participants, onlookers and those staffing the Boston Marathon by a person who obviously believed he was helping to make a moral and political statement, the goal of which was to achieve justice.
· The decision to kill one of the young people just convicted of that bombing in an attempt to achieve or promote justice.
· The torture of individuals by the representatives of the United States Government in order to gain information which might lead to killing others with the goal of creating a more just world.
In attempting to explain to a six year old that we are the good persons and thus justified in killing and torturing and that others are the bad people and, thus, not justified in killing and torturing, the conversation might go something like:
Child: What does justify mean? Are we always the good?
People?
Me: Justify means that we had a good reason for what
We do.
Child: Does this mean that if I have a good reason I can?
Hit Sue? She is often mean.
Me: No, it is not right to hit Sue. You will get into
Trouble.
Child: Oh, I can do it when she is walking home. No
One walks with her. I would not get into trouble then.
That would be like going to Poland to torture people?
Me: That is not what I meant. You are not to hit Sue at
Time. No, hitting her when no one can watch is not exactly
the same as going to Poland to torture people.
Child: Why not? You said that if I had a good reason for
Doing something and did not get into trouble it was okay.
Me: No, it is never okay for a child to hit another child.
Child: I have to wait until I am an adult to hit her.
Obviously, this conversation could go on for a long time with little resolution. For me it is always instructive to try to think of having a conversation with a six year old. Six year olds that I know are not fearful of asking question after question and saying when something is confusing or does not make sense to them.
In this example, I cannot make the child understand because I do not understand or accept the commonly accepted logic for killing or hurting another. I know that all of us justify our behavior and all of us begin a violent action out of a sense of frustration or a sense that it is our duty to stop the bad person(s) from being bad again! In truth, of course, I may be just reacting without thinking or my motive might quickly morph into one of wanting to punish the other for what I think is their bad behavior.
Although some think that I am just trying to make a point and really do understand the difference between the actions of the good people (us) and the bad people (them), the truth is I do not understand the difference. I do know that I can have very strong feelings that what I think is the right way to think. I also know that, as a person with a degree in philosophy, I can present my point of view in 60 pages or so! I also know how to include or leave out the essential core of an argument. Often that essential core is the strong belief that my point of view is based on just, moral beliefs and the point of view of others is based on a warped, destructive, “sick” point of view. After all, it is not logical to think that a God wants us to become a martyr to create a world in which people are following God’s laws. But then the six year old again chimes in and says, “But you pray that our side will win when they go to war which means others will die. You also know our soldiers are going to die for their country. I heard in school that we should be grateful that our service people are willing to die to create a better world for us and our children.” Then, of course, I would respond with, “Being willing to die or even expecting to die is not the same as someone becoming a suicide bomber.” The six year old would then, of course, want to know how it is different.
Well, perhaps we can leave that discussion and focus on an easier question. Obviously, even a six year old will understand that killing “innocent men, women and children at a marathon, running event is different than killing people in a war. So I say this to a six year old and the very precocious six year old brings up the subject of our drones killing lots of civilian men, women and children. We respond with those are accidents whereas the Boston bombing was intentional killing of innocents. So then the six year old brings up the subject of a kid at school bringing his dad’s gun to school because he wanted to stop the class bully but he hit and hurt someone else.
At this point one might want to point out that we cannot expect a six year old to understand the subtilizes of justice or war. Well, I am well past six and I do not yet understand the difference. I, obviously, know what many say are the differences. I also know how to present a very cogent argument which makes is sound seem different, but the truth is I really do not understand.
I think that I need to continue to talk to six year olds who may just be better at keeping me honest and forcing me to look at the justifications for my actions than many of my adult friends.
Again, I am wondering the extent to which I must take to heart the quote attributed to that Jesus fellow, “Unless you become as a small little child you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Christian religion New Testament: Matthew 18:3).
On May 15, a federal jury sentenced Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to deatlh. After reading this and looking at the photos of this young man I felt an overwhelming sense of sadness: both for the victims of the bombing and Mr. Tsarnaev and his family. Reactions of the victims varied although most seem to concur that justice has been done in finding him guilty and ordering the death penalty. Some suggested that although there is nothing happy about taking someone’s life, justice would have been done. Others suggested that “an eye for an eye” was just.
It is interesting that on the same day the newspaper carried the story of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights to impose a fine of nearly $250,000 on Poland for the torture of individuals by the Central intelligence Agency of the United States on its soil. The money will go to the victims of CIA torture, which took place at
an agency black site in Poland. The NPR news report said that,
“The people of Poland are expressing outrage on Friday as news spread that their own government is on the verge of paying more than $250,000 to victims of CIA torture which took place at an agency black site in the country even as the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the crime or take responsibility for the grave human rights abuses that took place under the Bush administration.”
My understanding and memory tells me that both the Bush and Obama administrations have admitted to the use of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques following 9/11, although I could find no specific admission of doing so on Polish soil.
On the Guardian.com site on August 1, 2014, one finds the following:
In some of the most expansive and blunt remarks on the CIA’s program of rendition and detention he has made since coming to office, Obama said the country “crossed a line” as it struggled to react to the threat of further attacks by al-Qaida. However, he also said it was important “not to feel too sanctimonious”, adding that he believed intelligence officials responsible for torturing detainees were working during a period of extraordinary stress and fear.
As I often do, I thought about attempting to explain the difference between the three acts to a six year old. The three acts to which I am referring are:
· The bombing of participants, onlookers and those staffing the Boston Marathon by a person who obviously believed he was helping to make a moral and political statement, the goal of which was to achieve justice.
· The decision to kill one of the young people just convicted of that bombing in an attempt to achieve or promote justice.
· The torture of individuals by the representatives of the United States Government in order to gain information which might lead to killing others with the goal of creating a more just world.
In attempting to explain to a six year old that we are the good persons and thus justified in killing and torturing and that others are the bad people and, thus, not justified in killing and torturing, the conversation might go something like:
Child: What does justify mean? Are we always the good?
People?
Me: Justify means that we had a good reason for what
We do.
Child: Does this mean that if I have a good reason I can?
Hit Sue? She is often mean.
Me: No, it is not right to hit Sue. You will get into
Trouble.
Child: Oh, I can do it when she is walking home. No
One walks with her. I would not get into trouble then.
That would be like going to Poland to torture people?
Me: That is not what I meant. You are not to hit Sue at
Time. No, hitting her when no one can watch is not exactly
the same as going to Poland to torture people.
Child: Why not? You said that if I had a good reason for
Doing something and did not get into trouble it was okay.
Me: No, it is never okay for a child to hit another child.
Child: I have to wait until I am an adult to hit her.
Obviously, this conversation could go on for a long time with little resolution. For me it is always instructive to try to think of having a conversation with a six year old. Six year olds that I know are not fearful of asking question after question and saying when something is confusing or does not make sense to them.
In this example, I cannot make the child understand because I do not understand or accept the commonly accepted logic for killing or hurting another. I know that all of us justify our behavior and all of us begin a violent action out of a sense of frustration or a sense that it is our duty to stop the bad person(s) from being bad again! In truth, of course, I may be just reacting without thinking or my motive might quickly morph into one of wanting to punish the other for what I think is their bad behavior.
Although some think that I am just trying to make a point and really do understand the difference between the actions of the good people (us) and the bad people (them), the truth is I do not understand the difference. I do know that I can have very strong feelings that what I think is the right way to think. I also know that, as a person with a degree in philosophy, I can present my point of view in 60 pages or so! I also know how to include or leave out the essential core of an argument. Often that essential core is the strong belief that my point of view is based on just, moral beliefs and the point of view of others is based on a warped, destructive, “sick” point of view. After all, it is not logical to think that a God wants us to become a martyr to create a world in which people are following God’s laws. But then the six year old again chimes in and says, “But you pray that our side will win when they go to war which means others will die. You also know our soldiers are going to die for their country. I heard in school that we should be grateful that our service people are willing to die to create a better world for us and our children.” Then, of course, I would respond with, “Being willing to die or even expecting to die is not the same as someone becoming a suicide bomber.” The six year old would then, of course, want to know how it is different.
Well, perhaps we can leave that discussion and focus on an easier question. Obviously, even a six year old will understand that killing “innocent men, women and children at a marathon, running event is different than killing people in a war. So I say this to a six year old and the very precocious six year old brings up the subject of our drones killing lots of civilian men, women and children. We respond with those are accidents whereas the Boston bombing was intentional killing of innocents. So then the six year old brings up the subject of a kid at school bringing his dad’s gun to school because he wanted to stop the class bully but he hit and hurt someone else.
At this point one might want to point out that we cannot expect a six year old to understand the subtilizes of justice or war. Well, I am well past six and I do not yet understand the difference. I, obviously, know what many say are the differences. I also know how to present a very cogent argument which makes is sound seem different, but the truth is I really do not understand.
I think that I need to continue to talk to six year olds who may just be better at keeping me honest and forcing me to look at the justifications for my actions than many of my adult friends.
Again, I am wondering the extent to which I must take to heart the quote attributed to that Jesus fellow, “Unless you become as a small little child you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Christian religion New Testament: Matthew 18:3).
RSS Feed