Extreme Human Behaviour

I have a classmate whom I am not particularly close to but I always find it easy to discuss with her world issues - corruption, income inequality, moral rights, life choices, etc. and over a caipirinha yesterday, we were discussing about human evolution. We came to the conclusion that mankind simply has not evolved much over the years. In the past, when war descended upon a nation or territory, it was reckless killing and raping of the women. Now, a bomb is dropped and the entire village dies. It is a matter of suffering while alive, because you had to undergo the trauma of being raped and watching your loved ones suffer, and now, simply dead with the dropping of a bomb. How different is it then? Why is the use of bombs chastised and not the invasion of the past? I would rather have a quick death than be tortured alive.

We also had a discussion about refugees and the crisis in Europe. I know that it is immoral to deny these refugees a place in Europe because they are running away from war. However, if there is an influx of refugees, more than what these camps can handle, it causes the living conditions in the refugee camps to deteriorate and everyone else suffers. Countries that take in refugees also need to know where to draw the line and say, "STOP", we are not taking in anymore. As long as refugees know that there is still hope of them escaping to Europe or some other country, they will try and keep coming. Thus, I think finding the right balance is important. We try to save as many people as we can but we cannot try to save everyone such that eventually, the entire ship sinks. My housemate told me about a story of a Lebanon family selling all their assets so as to acquire the status of a Syrian refugee and escaping to Europe. When they found that the living conditions were worse than what they had back home, they decided to return, but only to have nothing back at home. These are issues of moral hazards and shouldn't they be safeguarded against? 

Another discussion that we had was about suicide bombers. Some of them were threatened to take on this task, either to protect their families or for a compensation that will feed their family. Is it then right to take away innocent lives elsewhere, family members of other people, just so that you can protect your own family? Which life is more precious? Can we put a value to it? If suicide bombers can do that to protect their own family, then what is stopping Europeans from trying to protect their own loved ones against terrorism and controlling the influx of foreigners? 

For me, I want to stand on the side of justice and fairness and avoid putting myself in a moral dilemma as far as possible. If I had to kill someone else just to protect my family, I am sure my family will understand why I am unwilling to do it? How about if the lives that I am going to take away are people with sickness or have done bad things in life? Will my judgment be different again? 

I share this video from this stand-up comedian, George Carlin. It is one of the best videos that I have watched, talking about extreme human behaviour. It sounds cynical but it is so reflective of life. :)