I think the big debate here centers not on the ape-man, but the ethics and philosophy of the reader. This another instance where the facts are not in dispute, but we will never possess the same perceptions, because of our own differences.

Tangor discussed the "morality" of killing soldiers in wartime, versus the "immorality" of killing enemies such as did Tarzan.

The real issue is who should have the right to determine which killing is moral; society, or the individual?

One person solidly believes in a society of law and order; is confident that justice will triumph under our system; feels that taking the law into one's own hands is virtually always improper; and believes that it is moral for a sovereign nation to determine that persons of another nation should be killed.

Another person solidly believes that justice is an individual concept; is not confident that society will triumph; feels that one should do whatever one can to achieve justice; so long as (s)he understands the consequences; and believes it is no more moral for one nation to slaughter the citizens of another if 51% of the lawmakers vote for war than it is if 49% of them do.

Persons will fall somewhere between these types of extremes, but each of us has some perception of how we feel about these ideas. Some of us are more conformist than others. Some of us have had good or bad experiences with the legal system. Some of us have jobs which champion certain points of view. The factors are endless.

I know people who think I'm some of lunatic because I drive through a red light at an intersection which is bare of traffic for a mile in either direction; while I can't imagine why somebody would sit there and waste 30 seconds just because some legislators properly decided that in most situations people should stop and wait, even if it's totally absurd under the circumstances.

We possess a totally different outlook on law, government, individuality, and other aspects.

I just can't imagine anyone not getting together for a poker game because it's against the law to gamble for money. I've never met anyone like this. Who cares if it's illegal? This is an absurd law, and I'm going to have as many poker games with the guys as I want.

Most serious laws are simply codifications of morality we can agree on. Many, however, such as traffic laws, gambling laws, obscenity laws, etc. are ones which vast differences in opinion exist.

I see government as composed of people whose main goal in life is to be important and popular; and wield immense power, and who will do pretty much anything to get there and stay there. They will never take any action which will alienate a powerful single-issue group; nor will they ever take a stand which might be perceived as wrongful by any sizeable minority of general voters.

I've seen alot of this in action. If there is any group of people who I place less credence in, and who I could care less what they think is right or wrong, this group is awfully high on my list. I'll acknowledge their power to punish, and I'll take my lumps if I'm caught, but I'm not going to wait at a country intersection for a red light when you can see for miles; nor am I going to quit playin poker; just because these folks think I should.

Nor do I feel it is any more moral to make war on a country when a majority of Congress vote for it, than it was last week when they didn't have enough votes. This is not a matter of morality. It is power, need, national self-interest, and other things, for those who declare it. It is just a matter of no-choice servitude/duty and self-preservation for those who fight it.

It is no less moral for Tarzan to kill the black natives than for me to kill an enemy soldier. Tarzans perceives the native as no less an enemy than do I. In fact, he has personal knowledge that this person, by choice, would kill Tarzan, without being ordered, if he had the chance. Every less such potential enemy increases Tarzan's chances of survival. Every death increases the chances his enemy will leave the area; leave his cabin; leave the mangai.

The solder I shoot bears me no personal animosity. We are enemies solely because those who wield power in our respective countries have so decreed. We may personally believe in our cause; or we may not. Neither of us have any personal desire to deprive the other's family of a provider. We have no choice but to kill; not for any concept of justice; revenge, retribution, but because our leaders, governments, legislatures, and others have determined we will do so. Next year they may change their minds.

Morality, to me, does not hinge on the presence or absence of a few votes in the House or Senate. Morality is an objective, individual, reasoned concept; influenced by subjective feelings. Justice is the enforcement of that morality.

Obviously, I am a strong individualist. These are my views. I well understand the necessity of the government enforcing the law, but I do not necessarily disapprove of someone who "takes care of business" in his or her own way, under some circumstances.

Many of us wish we could achieve justice in our lives. Tarzan does achieve justice. To us, he does what is natural. Moreover, he does what we would do if we were him. What we wish we could do.

Others see his actions as subject to the mores of an individual who lives within a group. Who has surrendered his right to act on his own behalf for the protections afforded by a society which administers the law to protect all members.

They seem to have no moral problem with a Warlord who has the political power to declare that millions of hardworking warriors should engage in wholesale, violent war with another nation's warriors, solely to perhaps preserve the virginity of some superstar noble heroine, and at the same time carve his initials into the chest of some political enemy.

How we perceive the actions of the wild, solitary, Tarzan, as compared with the actions of a Dictator engaging in war; with respect to whether either, or both, is subject to some civilized majority rule concept of morality may be dependent upon how we perceive society itself.

Besides, who really gives a damn anyway. They're still fantastic books.

Tarak

Subj: Re: In Defense of the Jungle Devil (WAS Re: Bloodthirsty

Date: 97-11-24 19:15:43 EST

From: Zone agent

To: erblist@beginners.net

I think the big debate here centers not on the ape-man, but the ethics and philosophy of the reader. This another instance where the facts are not in dispute, but we will never possess the same perceptions, because of our own differences.

Tangor discussed the "morality" of killing soldiers in wartime, versus the "immorality" of killing enemies such as did Tarzan.

The real issue is who should have the right to determine which killing is moral; society, or the individual?

One person solidly believes in a society of law and order; is confident that justice will triumph under our system; feels that taking the law into one's own hands is virtually always improper; and believes that it is moral for a sovereign nation to determine that persons of another nation should be killed.

Another person solidly believes that justice is an individual concept; is not confident that society will triumph; feels that one should do whatever one can to achieve justice; so long as (s)he understands the consequences; and believes it is no more moral for one nation to slaughter the citizens of another if 51% of the lawmakers vote for war than it is if 49% of them do.

Persons will fall somewhere between these types of extremes, but each of us has some perception of how we feel about these ideas. Some of us are more conformist than others. Some of us have had good or bad experiences with the legal system. Some of us have jobs which champion certain points of view. The factors are endless.

I know people who think I'm some of lunatic because I drive through a red light at an intersection which is bare of traffic for a mile in either direction; while I can't imagine why somebody would sit there and waste 30 seconds just because some legislators properly decided that in most situations people should stop and wait, even if it's totally absurd under the circumstances.

We possess a totally different outlook on law, government, individuality, and other aspects.

I just can't imagine anyone not getting together for a poker game because it's against the law to gamble for money. I've never met anyone like this. Who cares if it's illegal? This is an absurd law, and I'm going to have as many poker games with the guys as I want.

Most serious laws are simply codifications of morality we can agree on. Many, however, such as traffic laws, gambling laws, obscenity laws, etc. are ones which vast differences in opinion exist.

I see government as composed of people whose main goal in life is to be important and popular; and wield immense power, and who will do pretty much anything to get there and stay there. They will never take any action which will alienate a powerful single-issue group; nor will they ever take a stand which might be perceived as wrongful by any sizeable minority of general voters.

I've seen alot of this in action. If there is any group of people who I place less credence in, and who I could care less what they think is right or wrong, this group is awfully high on my list. I'll acknowledge their power to punish, and I'll take my lumps if I'm caught, but I'm not going to wait at a country intersection for a red light when you can see for miles; nor am I going to quit playin poker; just because these folks think I should.

Nor do I feel it is any more moral to make war on a country when a majority of Congress vote for it, than it was last week when they didn't have enough votes. This is not a matter of morality. It is power, need, national self-interest, and other things, for those who declare it. It is just a matter of no-choice servitude/duty and self-preservation for those who fight it.

It is no less moral for Tarzan to kill the black natives than for me to kill an enemy soldier. Tarzans perceives the native as no less an enemy than do I. In fact, he has personal knowledge that this person, by choice, would kill Tarzan, without being ordered, if he had the chance. Every less such potential enemy increases Tarzan's chances of survival. Every death increases the chances his enemy will leave the area; leave his cabin; leave the mangai.

The solder I shoot bears me no personal animosity. We are enemies solely because those who wield power in our respective countries have so decreed. We may personally believe in our cause; or we may not. Neither of us have any personal desire to deprive the other's family of a provider. We have no choice but to kill; not for any concept of justice; revenge, retribution, but because our leaders, governments, legislatures, and others have determined we will do so. Next year they may change their minds.

Morality, to me, does not hinge on the presence or absence of a few votes in the House or Senate. Morality is an objective, individual, reasoned concept; influenced by subjective feelings. Justice is the enforcement of that morality.

Obviously, I am a strong individualist. These are my views. I well understand the necessity of the government enforcing the law, but I do not necessarily disapprove of someone who "takes care of business" in his or her own way, under some circumstances.

Many of us wish we could achieve justice in our lives. Tarzan does achieve justice. To us, he does what is natural. Moreover, he does what we would do if we were him. What we wish we could do.

Others see his actions as subject to the mores of an individual who lives within a group. Who has surrendered his right to act on his own behalf for the protections afforded by a society which administers the law to protect all members.

They seem to have no moral problem with a Warlord who has the political power to declare that millions of hardworking warriors should engage in wholesale, violent war with another nation's warriors, solely to perhaps preserve the virginity of some superstar noble heroine, and at the same time carve his initials into the chest of some political enemy.

How we perceive the actions of the wild, solitary, Tarzan, as compared with the actions of a Dictator engaging in war; with respect to whether either, or both, is subject to some civilized majority rule concept of morality may be dependent upon how we perceive society itself.

Besides, who really gives a damn anyway. They're still fantastic books.

Tarak