Civilisations and Group Violence

Middle Eastern and Western Civilisation

No agreement upon social limitation to violence. Cities or nations were wiped out for minor offences. Bible, Homer Ilias. "Teach 'em a lesson" was the principle.

until 1750 BC    (Hamurabi) A social agreement for the limitation of violence was agreed upon. Violence was only permitted in direct and balanced retaliation for proved offences: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Thus the rage of the party offended was excluded as a measure for the appropriate punishment. Leviticus 24:18 says, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." The eye-for-an-eye principle placed rational limits on retribution and punishment -- a true step of moral progress.

around 1350 BC (Moses/Akhenaten – according to Bible Moses lived around 4000 BC) "Thou shalt not kill" is very simple. No killing, of human beings in this context. From that moment on, premeditated killing, be it crime, punishment or war actually should have stopped. Humans, it seems did not yet grow up to the commandments. This should not prevent us from giving them a try, instead of planning aggressive, pre-emptive wars.

30                     Jesus: “Forgive those who have offended you, love your enemy”. Looking around this seems very difficult for us even to understand, let alone to practice. Yet, some very great people did unbelievable deeds following this principle. The most prominent of recent times may be Mahatma Gandhi. Probably those presently trying to defend themselves with the help of weapons, e.g. the Palestinians, the Iraqis, would do a great deal better, applying this incredibly simple rule.

Many people have been attracted by this rule and tried to understand it or to reinterpret it to make it more easily understandable by others. One very commonly cited interpretation is that by German philosopher Emmanuel Kant: "Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This most prominently means: examine whether you would like to be subjected to the same by others.

2001                    George Bush: “We’ll burn them out, we’ll hunt them down”, and even more important, the so-called doctrine: "If you harbor a terrorist, if you support a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." Connecting the two gives you the following verdict: we kill the terrorist of course, but we also kill their mothers, who feeds them, their family, who support them and we kill a whole country’s population if they harbour them. This is clearly back before 4000 BC.

2005                   It is only a short step obviously from there to the recent statement by a US general. Even though this is only a single man’s opinion, it is still important by his position and it seems symptomatic for quite a part of the US Army. At a panel discussion in San Diego Tuesday 1 February 2005, Lt. Gen. James Mattis tells the audience: "Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot…You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil,... So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

                            http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html

Eastern civilisations were ahead of this evolution (the one until Jesus) by a few thousand years.

Tao Te Ching
(Stan Rosenthal's Translation 31, 57, 74, 75; J.H.Mcdonald 38; 75/2)

31. MAINTAINING PEACE

Weapons of war are instruments of fear,
and are abhorred by those who follow the Tao.
The leader who follows the natural way
does not abide them.
The warrior king leans to his right,
from whence there comes his generals' advice,
but the peaceful king looks to his left,
where sits his counsellor of peace.
When he looks to his left, it is a time of peace,
and when to the right, a time for sorrow.
Weapons of war are instruments of fear,
and are not favoured by the wise,
who use them only when there is no choice,
for peace and stillness are dear to their hearts,
and victory causes them no rejoicing.
To rejoice in victory is to delight in killing;
to delight in killing is to have no self-being.
The conduct of war is that of a funeral;
when people are killed, it is a time of mourning.
This is why even victorious battle
should be observed without rejoicing.

38. THE CONCERNS OF THE GREAT

...
When the Tao is forgotten, there is righteousness.
When righteousness is forgotten, there is morality.
When morality is forgotten, there is the law.
The law is the husk of faith,
and trust is the beginning of chaos...

57. SIMPLIFICATION

…
The greater the number of laws and restrictions,
the poorer the people who inhabit the land.
The sharper the weapons of battle and war,
the greater the troubles besetting the land.
The greater the cunning with which people are ruled,
the stranger the things which occur in the land.
The harder the rules and regulations,
the greater the number of those who will steal…

74. USURPING THE TAO

If the people are not afraid of death,
they have no fear of threats of death.
If early death is common in the land,
and if death is meted out as punishment,
the people do not fear to break the law.
To be the executioner in such a land as this,
is to be as an unskilled carpenter
who cuts his hand
when trying to cut wood.

75. INJURING THROUGH GREED

When people go hungry,
the governments taxes are too high.
When people become rebellious,
the government has become too intrusive.

When people begin to view death lightly,
wealthy people have too much
which causes others to starve.

Only those who do not cling to their life can save it.