So killing an enemy with a rifle and then jumping on a grenade is OK, but if by jumping on the grenade you also kill the enemy, it’s somehow wrong?
It seems to me that if killing the enemy is all right, and jumping on a grenade is all right, then doing an action that combines the two should also be all right. Or is something wrong with my logic?
There are a couple of very serious flaws and misconceptions in the OP’s thought process.
All alien invasion films, on some level, have parallels to historical human colonialism of other nations and societies. A technologically advanced civilization invades Earth and attempts to subject or exterminate the population. Because mankind’s conventional military is so technologically inferior to that of the aliens, mankind typically has to resort to asymmetrical warfare tactics to defeat the aliens. Sabotage, ambushes, suicide attacks, cyber attacks, chemical or bio attacks. Even nuclear if a mechanism can be found to circumvent the aliens defensive technology.
But that’s largely where the similarities to “terrorism” end.
The humans in ID4 are launching desperate attacks to disrupt the MILITARY operations of an alien society bent of total destruction. Maybe there are also civilians aboard the alien motherships, but that is incidental. They would be collateral damage in a war their society provoked. Similar to civilians in Nazi Germany or WWII Japan.
The main issue people have with terrorism is not the tactics themselves, but that those tactics are being used on civilians for largely ideological reasons.
Also the “blowing up the White House” discussion is ridiculous. That was just standard issue Roland Emerich monument destruction porn. It was no more a political statement than the destruction of the Empire State Building was a commentary on Rudolph Giuliani’s policies. President LoneStar wasn’t even home at the time.
Because it’s fucking lazy. Because if you consider suicide a viable option, then you won’t make an effort both to win *and *to survive to fight the next battle, which is what soldiers are supposed to do.
The fact that suicide bombers kill civilians offends me as a human being, but the fact that they kill *themselves *offends me as a soldier. They’re an insult to the profession of arms.
I didn’t say killing someone with a rifle was okay. It might or might not be depending on the circumstances.
The reason throwing yourself on a grenade is, in my opinion unambiguously heroic, is that lives are saved nobody else dies as a result. If saving some lives results in the death of others, then it becomes less clear.
I may have trouble articulating this, and I’m not going to find a cite, but I really see a very big distinction here.
We often judge premeditated acts differently than we do acts taken in the heat of the moment. The crime of murder, for example, which is directly related to our current discussion.
It’s a bit ironic, because within each narrative, we often believe that something fundamental about a person’s character is expressed.
Biff Goodguy selflessly (jumped on grenade/pushed me off the tracks/etc) without thinking- what a great guy!
Dick Dastardly planned his murder of Polly Purebread for months, framing the director of the Orphanarium for his crime- how vile!
I think we feel that Biff’s great character moved him to his self sacrifice beyond what even his rational brain could achieve, whereas Dick’s crummy character failed to stop him from his heinous deed despite ample moments of reflection.
The 80’s film Red Dawn, to me, carried many of the same themes as Independence Day: An unprepared America is invaded by a foreign/external militaristic power. The outnumbered, outgunned hero’s “do the right thing” by continuing to fight back against the invaders, despite the hopelessly daunting odds. Some sacrifice themselves in the process, “for the greater good”. (However, in Red Dawn the twist is that the hero’s have to resort to guerilla warfare style tactics, too, which is a short step away from terrorism. It all depends on who is actually targeted: soldiers, or civilians.)
Many human societies have similar stories throughout the ages, portraying these kinds of qualities as noble, or positive ones.
Like I said, I have an issue with any violence being directed at civilians. Do you therefore believe that suicide bombing is acceptable when directed against soldiers?
Okay, fair enough, then I think you and I simply disagree. I do not accept that deliberately dying for a cause you believe in is morally inferior to dying because it is your profession. To go back to the movie, I wouldn’t have thought less of Goldblum and Smith for deciding whilst on the ground that they weren’t going to survive the mission.
So, if I decide in advance that I’m throwing myself on any grenades that roll through the door, have I compromised the morality of that decision?
BTW, there is a recent scifi example far more relevant to this discussion.
In the “Battlestar Galactica” remake, there is a whole story arc where the remnants of humanity have briefly settled on a planet, only to be occupied by Cylons.
The human resistance target military and administrative Cylons and human quislings with suicide bombings (especially appalling, given how low the number of remaining humans there were).
This aired in America while the war in Iraq was playing out, as elements opposed to America’s presence used the same tactics on Americans and on American trained Iraqi police. I was amazed that I never heard much comment about that.
Why would you make that decision? Do you want to die? Does your own life have no value?
I would have respected them less if they hadn’t at least tried, or at least hoped to survive. There a world of difference between facing certain death and facing almost certain death. Hope, luck, faith, destiny, whatever - as long as you hold onto that 1% chance, you’re still human.
I mean of course, if there are other people in the room to save. Also, I’m not suggesting that I personally would have the courage to do anything like that. I don’t think anyone knows that until they are in that situation.
My point is that there’s a difference between thinking:
“I don’t want to die today, but if they throw a grenade in, and someone has to jump on it to save everyone else, then I guess I’m going to be the one to do that - but let’s hope that doesn’t happen, OK?”
And:
“I’m gonna jump on a grenade today! Yeeeee-haw!”
I take your point. I think moral Intuitions can vary greatly from individual to individual. I think if they had known with absolute certainty, from the plan’s inception that there was no way to escape the blast, I might have respected them more.
On a related note, how do you feel about self-immolation for a cause where there is no intention of harming anyone else? Hunger striking, or setting oneself publicly on fire for example?
I’m against it. Human sacrifice is human sacrifice, even if you do it to yourself - and just ask the Aztecs how effective it was.
Well I don’t advocate it as a strategy myself, but I find it difficult to strongly condemn from a moral perspective. If the cause is noble and the person is of sound mind, it strikes me as pretty brave if misguided.
I think the ‘they want to die’ argument is overstated though. If you gave ISIL or Al Qaeda the ability to remotely bomb targets around the globe, I think they would use that instead. This argument is used by both sides for different reasons.
As you said, self-preservation is a core human instinct. By denying it in their enemies, the western powers deny those enemies humanity. The terrorists themselves claim not to fear death in order to show their super-human bravery, the power of their beliefs and the futility of opposing them.
In reality, I think people who really want to die typically achieve their goal pretty quickly. Why are religious fanatics so concerned about attacks on Muslim lands if all those attacks achieve is to send millions of Muslims to paradise? My hunch is, it’s because, on some level, most people understand that death is undesirable. The promise of reward is a post-hoc consolation, not a primary motivator.
Maybe this needs its own thread, but I never thought Quaid’s character had really been abducted prior to the movie. I thought he really was “nuts”; that his abduction was all in his head. He believes his tale was validated by the presence of real aliens, but I disagree.
I think your perspective is not supported by the movie. I do think it is implied that THESE aliens picked him up- they’ve been hanging around since at least Roswell! I also don’t think the movie supports the depth of your interpretation.
Still, your interpretation is not really contradicted by the movie, either. It is a very interesting perspective in its own light. You could write it up as fan-fiction, revealing more about this character (or one of his kids).
Well, the sun never stopped rising and jaguars never ate the world, did they?!