31.738
Bearbeitungen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 23. April 2018, 15:37 Uhr
, 15:37, 23. Apr. 2018→The History and Future of Homicide
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 124: | Zeile 124: | ||
#'''New Ethics''': From Taking "Thou Shalt not Kill" seriously (Ahimsa) to Transhumanism (h+): Reprogramming Predators (David Pearce). The Fifth Commandment vs. the torah's Sixth Commandment: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not murder (parochial intragroup ethics vs. universalism; specieism/especismo vs. holiness of life). 2 Moises/Deuteronomio ch. 20, v 13: ratsah - to murder; harag - to kill. - Christianity (mis-) translated "murder" into "killing": but it never took "ne occides" (Vulgata; Deuteronominon; Jerome = Hieronymus= Geronimo) seriously. The Bible itself is full of legitimised homicides and genocides. Whereas "thou shalt not kill" (St. James Bible) is a general commandment, it has never been thought of as referring also to the killing of animals or plants. | #'''New Ethics''': From Taking "Thou Shalt not Kill" seriously (Ahimsa) to Transhumanism (h+): Reprogramming Predators (David Pearce). The Fifth Commandment vs. the torah's Sixth Commandment: thou shalt not kill vs. thou shalt not murder (parochial intragroup ethics vs. universalism; specieism/especismo vs. holiness of life). 2 Moises/Deuteronomio ch. 20, v 13: ratsah - to murder; harag - to kill. - Christianity (mis-) translated "murder" into "killing": but it never took "ne occides" (Vulgata; Deuteronominon; Jerome = Hieronymus= Geronimo) seriously. The Bible itself is full of legitimised homicides and genocides. Whereas "thou shalt not kill" (St. James Bible) is a general commandment, it has never been thought of as referring also to the killing of animals or plants. | ||
'''9. The New | '''9. The New Helots: exclusion, oppression, and subservience''' | ||
The growing sensitivity towards animal (and plant) life and rights and the seemingly unstoppable extension of the circles of inclusion are not the whole picture, though. This compassion does not extend to those groups of humans that are seen as enemies or simply useless. Uselessness in any economic sense is the fate of a large part of the population in the post-industrial age, where robots can and will assume a lot of tasks hitherto reserved for the human labor force. According to the insightful considerations of Yuval Noah Harari, this will bring about significant changes in the fate of the masses as compared to the social development of the working class in the 19th and 20th centuries. | The growing sensitivity towards animal (and plant) life and rights and the seemingly unstoppable extension of the circles of inclusion are not the whole picture, though. This compassion does not extend to those groups of humans that are seen as enemies or simply useless. Uselessness in any economic sense is the fate of a large part of the population in the post-industrial age, where robots can and will assume a lot of tasks hitherto reserved for the human labor force. According to the insightful considerations of Yuval Noah Harari, this will bring about significant changes in the fate of the masses as compared to the social development of the working class in the 19th and 20th centuries. | ||
| Zeile 135: | Zeile 135: | ||
#Exclusion. Restricted citizen rights, e.g. "hukou" in China - a kind of passport system, which limits access to public services, based on the birthplace of the holder. First established in 1954 to immobilise China's large rural population, it is still a central instrument of population control. The rural population and migrant workers do not enjoy the citizenship rights that international conventions see as essential. - Divide et impera: varying types of passports with differentiated access rights for different subjugated populations. Restrictions of movement (see: Egyptian military policy in the Sinai Peninsula 2017/2018). - Withholding citizenship (Rohingy in Myanmar). | #Exclusion. Restricted citizen rights, e.g. "hukou" in China - a kind of passport system, which limits access to public services, based on the birthplace of the holder. First established in 1954 to immobilise China's large rural population, it is still a central instrument of population control. The rural population and migrant workers do not enjoy the citizenship rights that international conventions see as essential. - Divide et impera: varying types of passports with differentiated access rights for different subjugated populations. Restrictions of movement (see: Egyptian military policy in the Sinai Peninsula 2017/2018). - Withholding citizenship (Rohingy in Myanmar). | ||
These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots, a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful. | These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots (εἵλωτες), a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartans would declare war on the helots so they could be killed without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful. | ||
:Diferentemente dos escravos, os hilotas eram propriedade do Estado, que administrava a produção econômica. Durante a Cripteia um grupo de jovens espartanos era designado para assassinar líderes em potencial entre os hilotas. | :Diferentemente dos escravos, os hilotas eram propriedade do Estado, que administrava a produção econômica. Durante a Cripteia um grupo de jovens espartanos era designado para assassinar líderes em potencial entre os hilotas. | ||