How could you be okay with killing thousands of innocent people with the goal of protecting them? That seems contradictory. Getting peace through violence? At zero degrees, this obvious question has a fairly obvious answer. It isn't always about how you get somewhere, sometimes it is just about where you get, a point touched upon by Card in the novel. If I decide to go to California, whether I drive or fly I am going to California. Although the route I take matters, and will affect the trip in one way or another, my goal is still reached. So, why would I drive when I could get there quicker by flying? And that is the view the president, President Torrent, takes in Hidden Empire. Why take the long and perhaps impossible method of negotiating for those new country divisions, when you could simply send an epidemic and get the job done quicker and more efficiently? And so at zero degrees, we see the first angle.
At 90 degrees, we have a different look at the events happening. From the perspective of the Americans who learn of the president's methods, a complex problem is seen. These people know that the peace that surrounds them came about on the deaths of many. It is like knowing your business prospers because of child labor. You can see the money, but just beyond that is the lack of money. For these Americans with terrible knowledge of their much welcomed peace, a decision has to be made. Do you accept the peace or do you hate it? I wonder what I would do in that situation. Would I speak up or shut up? Would I still enjoy the peace or would I despise it? Somehow I feel I would still enjoy it. Outside of the book world, there are plenty of deaths that happen in other countries that we turn a shoulder to, and I don't cry myself to sleep.
At 180 degrees, at a full flip around the circle from President Torrent's view, we have the view of the Africans being plagued by this deadly epidemic. Would they understand the necessity of an engineered epidemic (assuming they knew it was engineered) or just hate the president for his terrible decision? From their look, they are both benefiting and suffering as a result of the epidemic. They benefit by being rid of the corrupt government that had ruled over them so harshly. But they also lost their families due to death. So which outweighs the other? Or do they balance each other equally? I think from the people's perspective they would be upset with the epidemic. They would not be able to see past the death, since grief blinds us with tears.
Another revolution and we stand at 270 degrees. What would the people of the United States, who do not know that their peace was built upon the deaths of many, think? From their view, nothing is wrong. An epidemic struck, and the quick acting president made use of it to help make peace even though terrible hardships were being faced. But if they did find out, I feel they would be in the same pickle as those Americans who had learned of the engineering as well. I feel both this group and the one mentioned at 90 degrees would, though angered, still accept their peace. I relate this to chocolate. We know that we shouldn't have it a whole lot, but sometimes that temptation gets the better of us and we take a bite. These Americans didn't suffer from the disease, so they feel they may as well enjoy the peace it is causing.
Finally, we have come full circle and are at 360 degrees. You can see the whole panorama out in front of you. Being able to see the pros and cons, was Torrent's decision right? Did he do what was, from an impartial view, right or did he just think for himself? I believe that his decision was right. Sometimes the action justifies the means.
No comments:
Post a Comment