Moral Dilemma Coffee
Within a coffee shop, two men conversed, while having a cup of coffee. One of the men was a political science professor in a university. The other was a philosopher, who wrote books and essays for a living. A conversation about the current political state of affairs, and corruption, stemmed.
“Tell me, if a man/woman was to come and start an organization to selectively assassinate corrupt political figures, would you support him/her?”
“No, it is wrong to do so. Matters should be resolved peacefully”
“Through protests and non-violent demonstrations”
“What if the current government has violent tendencies, and supports the killing of members belonging to any opposition?”
“Still, this does not justify their killing?”
“Would you defend yourself if you were attacked by a burglar in the streets?”
“And how is this different? You are still being robbed from your rights, and when you defend yourself or demonstrate objection, you are killed”
“Because a civilized society does not act as such”
“But a civilized society, usually, is composed of civilized individuals. And if civility stops people from defending themselves, then how did we come to evolve as such? Perhaps civility is a new and mutated characteristic, which is not meant to be passed on”
“But things don’t really matter if you attain them using the wrong means”
“Let me give you a little scenario, and then you can judge it. An idealist decides to start a small group of assassins, targeting corrupt political figures. They subjectively determine the motives of whoever is in charge, and if they find them harmful to the people, they kill him/her. However, if a politician truly attempts to improve the state of the country, and its people, they let him/her be. Let us assume that this particular group was very successful, and they grew to be a significant force. Now, during their existence, the country improves significantly. If after enough time passes, for their actions to have a significant positive impact on the country, and you are to judge this idealist. Would you consider him/her guilty – of actively improving the country – or innocent – for killing its leaders?”
“Well, this person did the right thing with the wrong methods. I cannot say that he/she is innocent. Regardless of his/her motives, he/she killed. Killing is wrong”
“By your logic, people like you will be extinct by the hands of people like the corrupt rulers. A prey cannot will its predator into submission, just as a pacifist cannot object a violent government into resignation”
By the time this conversation was over, the two finished their coffee and each one headed to start his day. It was a rather beautiful day.