The moral ambiguity of Vietnam

Today I would like to discuss a topic related to the Vietnam War. Specifically, I would like to focus on the Viet Cong, the unorganized bands of North Vietnamese civilians who were the American troops’ fiercest enemy for the majority of the war. The VC gained a reputation for their cunning guerilla tactics and for the brutal atrocities they committed against South Vietnamese civilians. Ever since, most Americans consider the VC an object of contempt and hatred. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, are grateful for the VC’s actions, which they believe to be valiant and just.

I would like to pose the following question: Speaking from a purely neutral perspective, how can we assess the VC? Are they heroes and martyrs, or are they brutal murderers who deserve only contempt?

Unfortunately, I believe that it is almost impossible to answer this question because of the problem of perspective. To Americans, the VC should be considered evil because they committed heinous war crimes against civilians and brutally murdered American soldiers with barbaric booby traps. To the North Vietnamese and communist Chinese, the VC are heroes because they did everything in their power to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. They justify the brutality by stating that it was necessary, which is certainly true—the VC recognized that the Americans were far superior militarily, so they saw the need to wear down the American resolve.

This issue of perspective is more permeating than one might think. For more examples, look at American history. During the American Revolution, American soldiers broke the previously established rules of war and did what was necessary to repel the British, who are clearly depicted as the villain of the whole affair. The image of the “minuteman” became glorified in American culture ever since. But how is this any different from the VC doing what is necessary to repel the foreign invader that was the United States? How is the image of a Viet Cong soldier—a rice farmer who, when necessary, will defend his homeland, different from the glorified minuteman? Next, look at the American Civil War. One of the events that helped to solidify the North’s victory was “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” in which Union troops burned Georgia to the ground to destroy the South’s economy. This, surely, is just as much of an atrocity as those the VC committed—but in America Sherman’s March is glorified, not mourned.

I suspect that Vietnamese history—and the history of every other country or ethnic group—embellishes details in similar ways. Vietnamese culture is based around their geography, which lends itself to frequent invasion. The Vietnamese have a spirit of endurance, which has managed to triumph over all of the other nations that have attempted to conquer it. Thus, the Viet Cong are undoubtedly seen as heroes, as they simply carried on the tradition of resisting foreign invaders.

This issue of perspective makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to truly assess the Viet Cong. As the Greek poet Aeschylus put it: “In war, truth is the first casualty.” This moral ambiguity is probably part of the reason why most Americans are averse to looking back at this period in history. Americans do not like to see themselves as the villains in history, but the Vietnam War puts us in exactly that position. Sadly, it is this war on truth that perpetuates war—if we are ever going to outgrow armed conflict, we must first outgrow our obsession with embellishing it.   

Name that viewpoint

Today I am going to do something I hope you will find interesting. The lecture that follows is written from a particular philosophical/political viewpoint, but I do not mention the name of this viewpoint anywhere in the lecture. It is your task to guess what position I am espousing. Here’s a hint: I do not actually endorse this view, it is just for the purposes of today’s game. Feel free to leave your guesses on the comments page. Here goes:

Look at society today. The world is riddled with crime, corruption, and immorality. The root of these problems come from a single source: the systems of government and morality that watch over us. 

First, let us look at one of the most important problems in today's world, crime. With each passing day, more and more children drop out of schools to become career criminals. More and more men resort to animalistic criminal ways, simply because they do not know any better. The reason is not a failure of our educational systems, but a moral failing of our government in general. The reason is simple: man has no moral instinct. Human beings have no inherent knowledge of what is good or evil; the purpose of the state is to teach proper morals to society. But today's methods, proposed by misguided do-gooders, are wholly incapable of doing so. Why? Because of the way human beings learn. Today, child criminals are only scolded, never punished, and adult criminals are given light sentences in all-expenses-paid, state-sponsored facilities where they can learn from other criminals. These methods attempt to appeal to people's "better natures"--which is foolish because they have none. Instead, we should abandon our hopeless attempt to shy away from "cruel and unusual punishment" in order to stick with what works. 

What these criminals--and society as a whole--do not remember is that the basis of all morality is duty. Today, society drones on and on about our "rights" while forgetting to tell us about duty. The results are predictable, because human beings have no natural rights of any nature. Look at the three famously proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life: what right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean? The sea will not harken to his cries. What right to life do two men have if they are stranded on an island, with only the other man as food? Which man's right in "unalienable?" Liberty: The men who signed this document knew that liberty was not a "right," since in doing so they pledged to buy liberty with their lives.  The pursuit of happiness: this is unalienable, though it is not a right: it is simply the universal human condition. But society reminds us of it nonetheless. This is the soft spot that our nation suffers because of: society--and the state--does not remind us of our duty, but of our imaginary rights. No nation, so constituted, can possibly endure. Instead, the state must cultivate our moral sense, so that we may live in harmony and prosperity. 

And what is this ideal moral sense? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive; all moral rules are derived from this key instinct of human nature. Anyone who attempts to deny this basic principle is destroyed sooner or later--this is the proof of its validity. But moral rules are more simple than just this blind instinct; the survival of the individual is in fact quote low on the moral scale. Higher up on the moral ladder are concepts such as duty to family, duty to one's nation, and duty to the human race. It is this theory of morals that is absent from today's society, and for this reason problems such as crime and corruption exist. 

Lastly, societies today are at fault when they scorn the military. They accuse leaders of causing unnecessary wars, bashing the army for being a "functionless organ" in today's world. What they forget is that wars are not caused by politicians, religions, or cultural differences--these are simply secondary factors. The truth is this: all wars are caused by population pressure . When two societies meet and here is only room for one, war is the natural and moral course of action. But this does not meet that we should implement birth control to prevent war--remember that societies who stop expanding will be wiped out by those who don't. So when one nation balances its population and declares it will never study war anymore, pretty soon (about next Wednesday) it gets crushed by a society that realizes that such a mentality is wishful thinking. The military performs a necessary and noble duty in defending the society it represents. Though civilians scorn military people, accusing them of being violent and barbaric, soldiers possess an important quality that many of these civilians lack: civic virtue. Each member of the military has shown that he willing to sacrifice his life for society, which is the noblest virtue a person can ever achieve.   

On the "inevitable singularity"

Unfortunately I do not have much time to write this month, as I am quite busy with other things. Today, though, I have an essay I would like to share: 

A recurrent theme in modern literature and philosophy is concern about the effects of technology on our humanity, a concern that has existed since the rate at which technology increases became too rapid to contemplate. Wallace Stegner expresses this concern in his essay “The Wilderness Idea,” in which he says that without another frontier humankind will be committed to a world defined and controlled by technology. Stegner is quite correct in stating that the concept of the frontier is behind us, and that technology will ultimately determine our way of life. Technological increase has been proven to be exponential and is inherently anti-individualistic, and technology naturally breeds dependence. Furthermore, the only frontier remaining is one that destroys individuality rather than promoting a self-sufficient pioneer lifestyle.

As any scientist will confirm, technology increases at a torrent pace and will only increase faster as time goes on. This has been proven in almost all fields of science, and most intellectuals regard the “technological singularity” as an inevitable conclusion. For example, in computer science, a theory known as Moore’s Law holds that scientists will be able to double a microchip’s computing power every two years until computers are capable of performing any calculation infinitely quickly. This inevitable increase helps to prove Stenger’s thesis, as it signifies that technology is impossible to supplant or remove from society. 

More importantly, technology naturally breeds dependence. Consider all of the major industries that define people’s lifestyles in today’s world: agriculture, transportation, and consumer goods. All of these industries are highly dependent on technology and will continue to utilize new technology as it is invented and it is completely inconceivable that any of these industries will abandon the technology on which they are based. This principle, combined with the fact that technology will continue to increase, yield only one conclusion: technology is and always will be a part of our lifestyles and society, proving that Stenger’s is correct in stating that a “Brave New World” scenario is unavoidable.

Stegner’s main point is that without a frontier or wilderness, mankind is committed to this dependence on technology. Stegner is quite correct in this assertion—the only frontier open to mankind is, as science fiction tells, us, outer space. However, this is not true wilderness in the sense that Stegner would like it to be—rather than promoting individualism as previous frontiers have been, space exploration encourages federalism and dependence on technology. Since sophisticated equipment is required for space exploration, the common man is no longer able to become a self-sufficient pioneer. Instead, only strong, central governments have the ability to perform the necessary research and build the equipment needed for space travel. Thus, no “wilderness” can save us from our inevitable fate—we are indeed committed to a society defined by our technology. However, Stegner is far too pessimistic about his conclusion—he forgets that technology has the capacity to meet all of our needs, destroying our individuality and self-sufficiency but creating a world without hardship.