From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

 

***The sublime:

 

I had such a cool afternoon on Thursday. I had planned on going to a lecture sponsored by the philosophy department on "Genocide and Humanitarian Intervention" (read: violence or war as justified in response to genocide) given by Larry May, Professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Anyway, he was hanging out in the philosophy department lounge working on his notes before his lecture when I had to walk by him to use the bathroom attached to the lounge. I stopped and introduced myself. We started talking about courses and stuff and I told him about my Evil and Suffering course. He asked, "Do you read Hannah Arendt?" I said, "Yes, we do a few chapters from Eichmann in Jerusalem and a few chapters on the distinction between pity and compassion in On Revolution. He said, "I was her last doctoral student."

I almost bowed.

Anyway, he also has a degree in law as well as philosophy so his interests in genocide have to do with International Law, the international definition of genocide and its implication for Just War Theory and international criminal justice. His lecture was fascinating to me and I asked a few questions. I am well acquainted with Just War Theory because we cover it in my Comparative Religious Ethics course. I also studied with Ralph Potter (who did work on Just War Theory in the 70s). I mentioned him to Dr. May and he knew who he was. God I love this stuff (uhhh… philosophy, not genocide). Sometimes, I am SUCH a geek.

 

Now, the international definition for genocide, which came out of the Geneva Convention is, “the intent to destroy a social group.”  There’s more of course, including the criteria for defining a social group, which covers four categories; racial, national, ethnic or religious. But the quandary facing international governing bodies NOW is that according to the definition, technically one group could “intend” to destroy another social group without causing even one death. One could attempt to destroy a social group through dispersement or through the legal prohibition of practices and customs, or some other creative means. Certainly, one could argue that when the definition was constructed, those on the committee surely meant “the intent to destroy the members of a social group,” but that’s not how the definition exists today. Philosophies of law and the judicial enforcement of said international law must now deal with the complexities this definition causes. How does one justify intervention, which could be potentially violent, in a situation in which a social group is being threatened without physical violence? And what about those potential situations in which many might be killed, but they do not constitute a recognizable “social group?” One could argue that David Koresh’s Branch-Davidian sect, AKA the Waco, Texas fiasco constituted genocide within a strict interpretation of the definition. There was intent to destroy a social group, (a religious one). And yet, our common sensibilities would tend to reject that conclusion.

 

One of my questions was related to this. I asked, “Many of the theoretical problems seem to present themselves because of the initial definition. Has no one called for the need to rethink it; to fine-tune it?” Professor May’s response was that it appears we’re stuck with it for the time being. Hmmmmm…

 

*** The ridiculous:

 

I worked a Starbucks shift yesterday.

 

At one point, I was working the register (I mean, working it, Baby).

There were three somewhat elderly women (well, older than me anyway) hogging the counter, couldn't find their exact change, wanted a plate instead of a bag... but, the other register person was waiting on them.

I cheerfully called the next person in line over to my register--- a man, noticeably irritated, carrying a newspaper tucked under his arm. 

 

He said, "Medium coffee."

 

I said, "Is that our paper or your paper?" (People expect us to KNOW this. If it’s our paper, they have to pay for it).

 

He said, "Just a medium coffee."

 

I said over my shoulder (to the woman actually POURING the coffee)... "Grande coffee."

 

He said abrasively, "You know, it's rude to speak a different language from the person who speaks to you." (Meaning of course, the bilingual skills necessary to translate "Medium" to "Grande").

 

I said, "That will be one dollar and 90 cents."

 

He said, "F**K you."

 

I handed him his change and said, "Thank you. Have a wonderful day."

Which I am sure pissed him off even more because I didn’t flinch.

 

I am not a big fan of suicide. But some people are just so damn miserable that sometimes it seems a reasonable choice for them. I mean depression is one thing, but depression is not necessarily turned against another person. Misanthropy and misery that is expressed outwards violently, just might present a case to argue that suicide sometimes is just the right thing to do.  (OK… cool it. I’m being somewhat sardonic here,not entirely serious).

 

From now on, if anyone says, “F**K you” to me, I’m saying it back (with a “thank you” and a smile too, of course).