T is for Treason

Now this relates to the post of Society. Keep in mind I’ve wrote all these together.

Treason is defined as being an extreme crime against ones sovereign or nation.

On this note then Treason is not a moral term. Treason is a societal term. Treason is basically a threat that Governments or Monarchies use to keep their power and prevent people from bringing down society.

Now obviously you’ll have gathered from my last post I do not particularly want people to bring the Government down, it would inconvenience me.

However it is worth exploring and looking at how someone accused of Treason is treated like the scum of the earth. In reality you cannot take an act of ‘Treason’ at face value until you have all of the facts.

For example, all of the freedom fighters trying to get diplomacy for their country and probably branded as committing Treason, yet really many would argue they are fighting for a good cause and doing something morally right.

Just because the Government does not like it, does not make it wrong.  I’m very sceptical over the arrest of the guy who runs wikileaks.

In principle I do not like wikileaks and think it should be closed down, I do not believe in freedom of information (it all relates to my dissertation, I’m not going into that) however, I also do not believe the man should have been arrested over it. We all know they just looked for a reason to arrest him because they couldn’t say that they were arresting him for the leaks.

Even then, it depends on the motive. Treason is morally wrong if you just feel like causing societal meltdown. Treason is not morally wrong if you are trying to change something for the better.

All of which is of course relative.

DFTBA

R is for Revenge

Revenge annoys me. You see so many movies where the hero is out for revenge on a villain who has done him wrong. I don’t think this is right.

If someone purposefully did me wrong, I don’t think I would ever act out of revenge. It just feels wrong to me. I think it casts some kind of authority on yourself which is not earned. To have a wrong act done to you does not justify then doing a wrong act back.

As clichéd as this sounds, two wrongs do not make a right (and two bowls don’t make a bowling ball).

I would act more in the idea of justice. Now there is a very fine line here and possible conflict of motivations which I completely accept. If you want someone arrested and punished for a crime against you then this can easily be seen as revenge.

The key is the focus. If the focus is on the victim regaining some kind of moral high ground etc then this is revenge. If the focus is on making the criminal see why what they did was wrong and truly repent, or to protect other innocent people from suffering then same fate then this is justice.

Now the bible of course talks of an eye for an eye in the Old Testament (I think, should really have looked this up, do correct me if I am mistaken). I have issues with this because I just don’t see what it achieves. If someone takes your eye out then you take out theirs what do you get? Just double the blindness.

I don’t really believe that revenge brings closure or makes a victim feel better either, not really. Or I should say if killing someone who killed your parents does make you feel better then I think there is something wrong with you.

This is why I like Batman.

Batman refused to kill, he seeked out justice not revenge.

Lets all be a little more like Batman

DFTBA