Sacrifices of War -- How To Elect Candidates In the Name of the Greater Good
Updated: Feb 8
Sacrifices of War -- How To Elect Candidates In the Name of the Greater Good
Case Example 1: Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu
In December 1st, 2023, a man named Yuval Doron Kestelman was shot accidently by IDF soldiers after he killed several terrorists in Jerusalem who were carrying out a shooting attack at a bus stop. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified Mr. Kestleman's death with three, following arguements:
"In the previous waves of terrorism, the presence of armed citizens saved the situation and prevented a major disaster. That's why I support this policy"
Albert Einstein demonstrated once how with each growing, repeated mathematical equations, with each successful solution there is also a chance of mistakes. (For example, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, but it will eventually grow more complex and as such the commitment of a mistake, like 9+9=70, is an inevitable possibility)
These statements can reflect not only the mind but the heart of the one saying them. According to my Storage Room Theory, Mr. Netanyahu has a very small heart, for he is too calculating to consider the implications of human death on an emotional level. Our hearts, symbolically, serve as metaphors for our emotional capacity of human beings. And that can be both an asset as well as a liability. It is an asset when it increases our empathy and makes us compassionate. And it is a liability when we see people as expendable.
Was Mr. Netanyahu right in his assessment? He was right only partially. He was right in saying that mistakes are prone to happen. He was wrong in not willing to call to the reduction of these mistakes. Mr. Kestelman's death, you see, wasn't an inevitable possibility. Theoratically, all it took to prevent his death at the hands of the IDF was to not assume he was a terrorist as well. Mr. Kestelman's death wasn't inevitable simply because he didn't have to die. Not for his heroic deeds, and not if a greater consideration was invested in identifying the people involved.
To claim that "that's how life is" is foolish because it justifies unintentional friendly-fire. And friendly-fire, after all, can be reduced. Even if it cannot be eliminated completely, the chances of friendly-fire can still be reduced. Mr. Netanyahu therefore refused to call for reducing the chances of it occuring. And the fact that it occurs, does not mean it shouldn't be reduced, correct? The fact that traumas and mistakes happen regularly, does not mean they should resume at their current frequency.
And that's how the disposing of an indosposeable altruist was justified for his altruism. If it wasn't sad, the reasoning would've been laughable.
Mr. Netanyahu's greater good... I wonder what is it? Perhaps, it is... Preservation and order.
Case Example 2: Dr. Robotnik
In the source I just linked there's a fictional example from an old animation series, where a henchman gets disposed by his boss, despite helping his plans. He gave him information that was very useful for his next steps, but the boss, Dr. Robotnik, punished the henchman by demoting him to a janitor, all because he failed doing more with the given information. Instead of giving his boss the device, he only gave him the information of its existence.
Dr. Robotnik's greater good was... Perfectionism. I will explain the invaluable necessity of the greater good, later in this article.
War As Investments
Military conflicts, whether planned or inflicted on us, are unfortunately similar to business in a sense that they are investments. You gather resources and employ them under your management in order to achieve your desired results, which can be deemed as success. And of course, human beings are also resources.
Have you cared enough to realize that nations operate similarly to businesses? Even contemporary politicans dress in business attire. That's because politicians ARE businessmen. With the countries they manage, being their enterprises. So, by electing a representative to lead us, we basically elect our next, national executive staff, CEO included, of course.
When we elect our executive staff, we elect those who will have power over us. And in order to understand how people might behave, in order to understand their next moves, we need not only observe what they're saying. After all, their words can be manipulative lies. No. We need to understand the intentions behind the words. We need to understand how they think. And that is a very difficult task, is it? We are not telepaths. So, in order to better understand our elected representatives, we need to understand their words and their actions, and see if there is a greater strategy at play.
That is something most of us might not necessarily do. And that's a great flaw in a democracy. Why? Because we might not necessarily truly understand the people we're giving power to. And the people we give power to, can and will eventually sacrifice us as investments. How come? We are, after all, human resources. HR. We elect those who will make us their resources.
And to know what leader is best fit for our priorities, we need to ask ourselves: How are we going to be used by them? And NOT ONLY, how they will be useful for us. Not being able to put ourselves in other people's shoes, is our greatest flaw as democratic societies. We mustn't be too self-centered, or we will suffer the implications of our egotistical biases, and poor long-term thinking.
In order to optimally understand how the other side thinks, we must understand his or her "greater good", or their core ethical values. They're also known as standards or criteria. Without understanding this, or at least having a clue about them, how can we even elect our representatives wisely? Because when we elect people for power, we elect not only them but also their core values. When we elect them, they will use their gained power to promote these values.
Electing people give us a chance to promote these core values as well, especially given the fact that we also have core values. Inspecting our core values, and being able to see if politicians have these core values as well, is how a democracy can have a better chance at being managed per the will of the people.
Therefore, a collective effort at introspection, and debates on our individual, core values, is key to better understanding of what leaders we want to rule us. And by "rule us", I also mean, "use us as human resources for their own core values".
And these are the type of values that dictate whatever we -- and those at the top -- would consider the greater good. Do we want a leader like Netanyahu who prioritizes order, even when that order is filled with flaws? Are we perfectionists, like Dr. Robotnik, and would tolerate no achievement that is smaller than what we expect of others?
It all begins in collective introspection, and the exchange of our individual findings, post-introspection.
Bonus
There are resources online that can offer you clues as to how detect lies, which politicians do to conceal their true intentions. Verywellmind.com has one of them.
.jpg)
Comments