Strange Horizons Discussion Forum: Just Tell Me How It Ends, by Matthew Cheney

>>It's a sobering thought that thoughout history, violence has only been considered immoral by fanatics and crackpots—most of the violence of the past has been justified by some sort of moral majority, whether via the religious morality that has propelled so many crusades, witch burnings, and sacrifices, or the political morality that has justified genocides, torture chambers, and executions.<<

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Throughout history, plenty of violent acts have been opposed by people I wouldn't consider "fanatics" or "crackpots." Unless you think that opposing violence itself renders you into one of the above catagories? Your piece seems to be rather focused on the history of the West, in any case-- Buddhism, for example, doesn't contain any sort of end of the world apocalypse. Instead, it deals with cycles of suffering. The ending is removing yourself from the cycle that still (presumably) carries on without you. Many Eastern religions (certain strains of Buddhism, Hinduism and most particularly Jainism) strictly advocate against violence (in the Jain's case, to the point of avoiding tubers for fear of killing insects), and I don't think believing in those tenets automatically renders you a "crackpot" or a "fanatic"--although I'm sure we could find examples. If anything, those who practice the violence are far more likely to be the crackpots than those who oppose it. You can say that in a situation of state genocide/atrocity, most of us will just passively accept it, which may be true, but just because most of us will do nothing doesn't make the ones who go against the grain crazy.

Thanks for the interesting column.

Alaya