So you’re saying that it should be possible to somehow reason with a person like Osama, Charlie Manson, Ted Kaczinski, Jeffery Dahmer, or Tim McVeigh (to name but a few)? Sorry, bub. Those folks don’t want to be reasoned with, they don’t have any desire to sit down and have a negotiated agreement where all sides can at least tolerate one another. They either want you on their side, or they want you dead. It’s that simple, and that’s what makes them evil. You can’t reason with them, you can’t have a logical discussion with them, they are rabid dogs on two legs.
Well, isn’t it a moral failing to wish for those ends, as opposed to them learning a life lesson that didn’t revolve around them experiencing loss or suffering? Further, would it be wrong to take pleasure in such an experience if it doesn’t lead to reformation on behalf of the person suffering?
Glad we can agree on that much. Personally, I don’t assign a moral value to thoughts, only to actions. Punching a guy in the mouth is (usually) an immoral action. Thinking about punching him in the mouth is morally neutral.
Allow me to flesh out my position here a bit. I don’t agree with celebrating the death of someone just because you don’t agree with them. I’m talking about being glad to hear of the death of someone who has been actively seeking to cause you harm. The removal of that source of harm is, in many cases, a reason for joy. I think it is possible to compartmentalize the death of that person, and the grief felt by that person’s loved ones at his passing. I can be glad that Tim McVeigh is dead, while still feeling sorry for his family. The two reactions are not mutually exclusive.
I think you are confusing a poor understanding of morality and compassion with a differing understanding of morality and compassion. I do not have any doubts as to my own moral state, or my capacity for compassion, despite the fact that I do not feel compelled to regret the passing of murderers, terrorists, and bigots.
This is neither here nor there. Taking pleasure purely in the fact that someone has died is morally reprehensible. Just because they are evil, or bad, or whatever, that doesn’t excuse it, it just shows your moral failing.
To bring up a popular example, if a major terrorist leader dies, I’m not happy that someone is dead. I am genuinely happy that a terrorist leader is no longer able to orchestrate things and I am happy that a terrorist group has suffered a strategic set back. But to take pleasure from the death itself is reprehensible bloodlust, and is part of the baser instinct of mankind.
We’ve moved out of the jungle, we don’t have to live like animals anymore nor should we.
Perhaps then, you should scroll back to my first post, where I said I wasn’t happy he was dead. I would’ve much preferred him to live a long life in prison suffering. But I’m not sorry, either.
Dammit, hit “post” too soon.
I’m not rejoicing in the man’s death at all. He got off easy, as far as I’m concerned. But smugly telling me what I should and should not feel is judgemental in and of itself. Make up your mind. Either it’s okay to judge or it isn’t. Oh, and make sure you know what the fuck I’m saying before you judge me for it.
Funny that you mention Jeffrey Dahmer. I remember, when he was murdered in jail, officials told everyone NOT to rejoice in the man’s death, he was a human being, what happened to him was wrong. A nasty human being, perhaps, but it would be unethical to take pleasure in his death. (When a co-worker told me the news, I thought for a minute and said, “Good!” He laughed, and said I was the only person who said that.)
Years later, I remember the pictures of Uday & Qusay Hussein, freshly killed in battle, being paraded through the press, across the Internet and on the cover of every news magazine, like trophies claimed in battle, the spoils of war. Nobody ever suggested we should treat them like human beings.
Funny, how our culture validates rejoicing in the deaths of some people, and not others, depending on the type of evil they are guilty of.
If not you who. Is the implication that the job is so big everyone is blameness.Therefore nothing should be done. Lay was represented by great attorneys and spared no expense. He wa s found guilty.
Some body sets the agenda. They werent arrested for looting California. They conspired to fix porices and loot the system ,partially through political clout. They represent what is wrong with capitalism. Deregulation has given them a license to steal and steal they did.
I worked at Enron Europe for a bit over a year until just a week or two before the bankruptcy was announced (for an extra topping of irony I was working on the EnronCredit system that was basically selling insurance against companies going bankrupt). I was an independent contractor and didn’t lose any money in the disaster, but I gained a lot of insight into what it was like to be an Enron employee.
One thing it’s hard to communicate to someone who never worked there is how much pro-Enron material all of the employees were shown. Every day there’d be news on the intranet, or via e-mail, or a speech by Ken Lay or other Enron management left on your phone’s voicemail. Links from financial sites citing Enron stock as a strong investment were common. In Houston it was even more intense with Enron TV in all the lifts and lobbies singing their praises. It was impossible to escape the propaganda; it was everywhere you went.
In light of this I can see why a lot of people failed to diversify their stock portfolios. Yes, certainly, with the benefit of hindsight they were at fault for failing to plan ahead, but you must understand that, to the average Enron employee, the thought of the company faltering was almost unthinkable. When you’re told multiple times a day, every day, that Enron stock is the best stock in the world it’s easy to feel smug about owning a lot of it. It seems like a really good idea while getting rid of some of it in favour of other companies’ inferior stock doesn’t seem so smart.
Personally I can only condemn the top people at Enron because I know how wholeheartedly the majority of their employees believed in the company. Ken Lay and the others let them down. I wouldn’t wish death on the man, but I certainly believe he deserved a stay in prison.
So much of Enron was so very good. It’s true that the environment was intense and, frequently, unforgiving of those who failed to make the grade, but those who did formed a very effective company. The talent and will existed to take on practically any project and make it succeed and the company worked hard to make those people feel valued.
This is why I would say that Enron was a tragedy, and that the senior management who allowed it all to be based on a fraud should pay. It was an utter betrayal of thousands of people who had worked hard to make Enron the thing it said it was, who believed in it wholeheartedly, and who formed the best and most capable team I have ever worked with.
Thank you, Armilla, for expounding on the atmosphere of working at Enron. I don’t think that people who weren’t there or didn’t know people there are aware of the uber zany in your face propaganda machine that was constantly running.
The day that he died my sweet pea sent me an email about it. His link didn’t work, but I knew what he was referring too since it was everywhere in the news. Although, BrainGlutton, Delay wouldn’t have hurt my feelings much either.
Slightly off topic, but recently I was at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. I forget which exhibit my group was checking out, but on the wall was a big list of sponsors, including of course Kenneth and Linda Lay. That’s really got to hurt the people who were screwed over by him. Also, there are a lot of people who were hurt by the company who haven’t been mentioned. Enron was in the process of building another building when it went under and all of those contracts (electrical, plumbing, ect) were gone. Sadly, it wasn’t just the people of California and the employees who were hurt. Enron was like a great big black hole of suckitude.