Another Analogy

[oberliner]

Analogy:

There is this guy who wants to kill your family.

Every day he is going to do everything he can to try to achieve that goal.

Fortunately, your family is pretty well-protected and he is not very effective in his attempts to kill them. Occasionally, though, he does succeed in injuring a few relatives.

Day after day, he keeps up his attempt. His methods improve over time and finally, one day, he manages to kill your older brother.

Distraught over your brother’s death, and fearful that the rest of your family will soon also be killed, you seek a means of stopping this man.

You are told that there is only one way to stop him.

You have to kill an innocent five-year old girl who has no connection to this man whatsoever.

If you kill her, this man’s attempts will cease.

If you do not kill her, however, this man will continue to devote himself to killing every member of your family and his means for doing so will continue to improve.

What do you do?

This analogy (like most analogies) has many flaws. I do think it is instructive in that it is somewhat illustrative of the position in which the Israelis feel that they have been placed. If the “you” in this analogy kills the girl to save his family, is it self-defense? Murder? Both?

[Waya]

1. The missing component in this is........

...what did I (or my family) do to make this person want to kill me and my family?

[mzteris]

3. jinx. n/t

[adriennui]

10. nothing

the the palestinian rampages against civilians is out of proportion. where's britain, jordan, and other arab countries in this deal. all have profited over the backs of the palestinians but no one has paid quite so dearly as israel.

[mzteris]

2. except you left out part of the analogy.......

what is the role of the "head of the family" in relation to the man who is doing the killing?

Is the "head of the familiy" *just an innocent bystander* picked at random by this man? OR is he playing some role in having incited this man to the acts of violence?


Just asking the questions as a reminder that there is ALWAYS more than one side (and most often more than TWO sides to any story.)

[Cornus]

4. It's definitely NOT self defense

It's murder pure and simple. That little girl had absolutely NOTHING to do with the the harm being inflicted on your family.

[uppityperson]

5. as with all the analogies so far, some good points, some bits missing

I understand this reasoning, do not agree with it, but understand it.

Missing, why this situation exists. Nothing starts from nothing, everything has a further back part. 1 of the problems with stories as you have to pick a place to start, but it is not really the beginning.

[rug]

6. And how will killing a five year old stop him?

[phylny]

11. It hasn't. For years and years and years, it doesn't stop him. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. I think it's a good analogy in the sense that has no answer, just like the

situation you are talking about in real life.

Both sides - and, hell, let's expand to include three or four or five sides (The US, Iran, and I'm sure osme other countries that are involved, even if not directly) - are morally and ethically wrong; both sides are morally and ethically right.

There is no real solution, and no blame that can be placed squarely on any side.

It is a great evil happening, in which all sides are in collusion, and all are equally guilty; and equally innocent.

There is no real answer to your hypothetical - only the answer that is chosen, and no matter what is chosen it is morally and ethically good, and morally and ethically reprehensible. And there is no real answer to the real world situation.

[cynatnite]

8. analogies are worthless...

There is no analogy that anyone can think that can take into consideration the thousands of years of animosity, hatred and killing that's been done by all involved...let alone since Israel became a state.

[TahitiNut]

9. Propagandists always pick interesting starting points.

"There is this guy who wants to kill your family."

Passive voice. No cause given. Just some presumed "evil" without reason. It's the very essence of demonization. It's bullshit!

The logical fallacy (defect in mental processes not to mention ethical) is in the very presumption of blame ... in essence, embedding the conclusion in the premise.

The repeated attempts to pollute this forum with such intellectually insulting crap should be an affront to any rational DUer.

[Rockholm]

12. Another Misspelling. Sigh.

Shame, really.

[oberliner]

14. Thank you

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error! That is a pet peeve of mine as well.

And thank you to everyone who responded with your thoughts on the analogy I presented.

I had initially planned to include:

Note: Some may argue that the fatal flaw in this analogy is that it does not address the reasons why this man wants to kill “your” family. Perhaps “you” have done something horrible to this man or his own family. I think this analogy has some validity even without addressing that question.

I realize that is a crucial missing component. I wanted to try to stick to areas where there is some general agreement.

I think we all can agree that:

Hezbollah has been trying (most ineffectually) to kill Israelis.
Israel is currently killing innocent Lebanese.

I can understand the "Innocent people should never be killed under any circumstance" argument but I am concerned by the "Israelis are killing innocent people for no reason" perspective.

[TahitiNut]

15. Use of the term "innocent" is itself propagandistic.

We're not talking about a justice system, despite the self-righteous proclamations of the Hatfield-McCoy School of Political Science and Sociology. We're talking about a cycle of violence and revenge, much of which was imported from eastern Europe but owes its genesis in the darker recesses of the human psyche, no matter what the demographics.

To say that some are "innocent" (besides children) is to imply that (only?) some are "guilty." However, even on DU we saw that Rachel Corrie was sneered at - and I doubt one could claim she was somehow less "guilty" than an IDF Reservist in civilian mode.

I personally find the furor over "civilian" death to be almost nothing but bombastic rhetoric ... when it's death, maiming, and destruction itself that's the evil, no matter whom.

[Hosnon]

13. I think you'd have to consider killing the five year old girl.

However, I'd only SERIOUSLY consider doing it if the attacker becamse so successful that my family members were being killed regularly.

As a side note...All, not most, analogies are flawed. It's the principle of identity. If the analogy were 100% then you would be analogizing something with itself. Analogies are, by definition, flawed. However, if the similarities are high, around 90%, then they can be extremely useful.

Of course, some people try to use them when the similarities are low which seriously calls into question its usefulness.