Could the ‘Absolute Morality’ be defined? Could someone someday provide an answer for how to judge whether something is moral or immoral, something is right or wrong? Something which would be acceptable to all?
“If you have to kill millions to save billions, would you do that?”
Watched the movie “The Watchmen” sometimes back. It is an amazing movie with some thought provoking dialogues and characters. At the climax of the movie, the hero/villain (its for you to decide) wanted to save a definite nuclear war between Russia and USA, which would have killed billions all over the world. He masters a plan for a nuclear-like explosion in New York which would appear to have been caused by one of the Superheroes endorsed by USA. This would divert the attention away from nuclear war. He did exactly this, killing millions in New York and as a result of which, USA and Russia became friends and the nuclear war was prevented. He claimed that by killing millions he saved billions. Some of the superheroes agreed with him and called him a hero, but others disagreed with him and called him a villain.
A similar thing happened in Sri Lanka very recently. LTTE had killed thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka over the last 20 years, and would have continued to do so had the government not launched an all-out offensive against them. The government was determined to defeat them, no matter what price they would have to pay. The LTTE used Tamil civilians as shield, and they were caught in the crossfire. Despite appeals from all over the world to stop fighting so that innocent civilians don’t die, the government attacked LTTE from all sides, not caring about the civilian deaths which ran into hundreds of thousands. In the end, the LTTE was eliminated once and for all, but over 25,000 civilians died and 300,000 moved to relief camps.
Again, this is a question as raised in the movie ‘Watchmen’. Was this the right decision? Was it moral or immoral? Did the Sri Lankan government kill thousands to save millions?
25,000 innocent civilians lost their lives, but LTTE has been eliminated and won’t kill civilians anymore. Had they not been eliminated, they might have killed another 30,000, or maybe a million more innocent civilians. They could have grown and could have been like Taliban. They could have been the Masters of Terror. They had already killed around 50,000 civilians in Sri Lanka in the last 20 years. The death of these 25,000 civilians is a price that has to be paid to prevent the worst.
On the other hand, there could have been another solution. The Tamils have been marginalised and discriminated in Sri Lanka, which gave rise to LTTE problem. The root cause of the problem should have been addressed, rather than being over aggressive. The 25,000 people that died were all Tamils, and this could give rise to a hatred filled society, with Tamils blaming the Sinhalese for their plight. The government could have talked to LTTE, and with international pressure and some compromise from both sides, this could have been averted. Sri Lanka could have given more autonomy to Tamils, and in return LTTE could have laid down their arms.
Both the scenarios have a lot of “could have”. Nobody knows what ‘would have’ happened if these ‘could haves’ had become reality. It’s not something which is in black and white. I’m unable to say if the Sri Lankan government did the right thing or the wrong thing. What do you say?
--Ashutosh
