Suchergebnisse

"Cruelty is a specific kind of human behaviour and has a clearly cultural dimension. It is often the result of passions and drives, accompanied by the breaking of taboos and a crossing of boundaries that cultures have raised to prevent the moral regression of mankind. Cruelty is also a "rational" way to acquire and stabilize political power. Both the atrocities themselves and the accusations of cruelty are instruments of power. The political efficiency of cruelty depends on the fear and awe, which it produces. Seneca regarded cruelty as the main attribute of tyranny. Through its imagery (like the bull of Phalaris) it breaks possible resistance and establishes despotism permanently. In the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times cruelty was considered a necessary evil in order to realize superior positive goals. So did the inquisitors, and so did Machiavelli who regarded cruelty not only as a means to the acquisition and preservation of power. The prince should also use cruelty to unify Italy and to build a stable and peaceful political order. Later, the understanding that cruelties are necessary to achieve good ends did not fall into oblivion, in spite of all criticism of Machiavelli's thought. In totalitarianism the aim of cruelty was not primarily the infliction of pain, but the abolition of individualism and the enforcement of the belief in a general law, which rules mankind. This could be either the law of history like during the French Revolution and in socialist states, or the 'natural law' of social Darwinism in the National Socialist and Fascist regimes. After the breakdown of totalitarianism and the triumph of liberal democracy the question arises, if cruelties are necessary components of all politics. Although we can still find cruel policies in liberal democracies (see Guantanamo Bay), at the same time the struggle against cruelty is vital in these systems and explains the dominance of the discourse on human rights." (author's abstract)