Black or White
A friend of mine started a poll asking all my Chinese friends what they would do in this hypothetical scenario:
It's World War III and you have to side with either China or America.
If you choose America, the entire Chinese population will be wiped out and there will be no more China.
If you choose China, the United States will similarly be wiped out along with the American way of life.
And by choosing a side, it means to fight on behalf of that country.
I think hypothetical situations like these are absurd. At the very least, more information should be given before one entertains such a scenario. Questions like these are a form of litmus test to show where a person's loyalties lie. How would you be able to blindly just choose a side without further information?
Most of my friends seemed to have clear cut answers. Some were adamant on fighting for the United States and others were adamant on fighting for China due to Chinese pride.
My response was, if I am to fight and possibly die for anybody, whether man or country, I need to know what I'm fighting for.
My friend then asked me what kind of information I'm looking for. He re-iterated the question in the same exact simple scenario, which basically amounted to "Just pick a freaking side will ya?"
I refuse to play that game. His choice was that he would fight for the United States because that is his home country. He is obviously a loyal [Chinese-]American. But what if the United States was the clear aggressor? What if they made ridiculous threats or demands and unjustly imposed their will? Would he knowingly commit GENOCIDE on an entire race simply because of nationalism? The same set of questions apply to those who blindly choose China (and don't even get me started on why an American citizen, enjoying the benefits of America, would blindly choose to side with a foreign nation).
But that's probably considering too many factors. People just like simple, clean scenarios. Blind nationalism is just plain silly in my opinion. Faith, loyalty, nationalism, pride. These things are what blinds people to critical thinking. I was a little disappointed that all my friends were able to choose a side so quickly, especially within the context of the proposed scenario (GENOCIDE).
Enjoy this article?
Archives
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
My Recent Photos
August 19th, 2011 - 11:09
I think you forget that once you question the situation more, it’s not hypothetical. ALL hypothetical situations are hypothetical because there are certain givens and in this situation, the givens were few. Once you incorporate reason, then the situation becomes different.
While you are not wrong to question and add new criteria, it is also not wrong for the poser of the question to keep the situation with as few givens as possible.
But one thing most of us can agree on is that once you do incorporate more criteria to the hypothetical situation, then you’re asking a completely different question. The poser of situation isn’t asking the question you are looking for and therefore, doesn’t want to alter it.
Question might be vague, but the responses are also vague as well. I think to be disappointed because people were able to have an answer based on the small amount of givens is a bit much since it’s not like anyone who answered would definitely give the same answer if your questions were incorporated into the situation.
-ray leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
August 19th, 2011 - 11:28
He might as well have asked: Would you help commit genocide on behalf of the United States.
I just don’t understand how people can answer that without more information.
Even if the whole genocide part (he didn’t use that word, but that’s what it is) was not included, and it was just a question of “would you fight for your country if you were forced to fight,” I am the type of person that would want to know why I’m being asked to put my life on the line.
August 20th, 2011 - 21:48
I agree Alvin, you need more information. You can’t just support the U.S. because whatever fuckheads in charge decide to do something. The armed services don’t necessarily fight for our country, they fight for the people in charge, and more often than not it’s money that motivates them.