100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

August 04, 1962 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1962-08-04

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Seventy-Second Year
rEDrmTD AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY Of BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where OpinitP Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MICH. 0 Phone NO 2-3241
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.,
SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: CYNTHIA NEU

The Best Laid Plans

Nuclear Warfare
Policies Immoral

HE POSSIBILITY of nuclear war raises
grave moral problems. A public discussion
led by the Rev. Father Leo Sands at the
Newman Club center Wednesday evening
brought up some of these problems. They de-
serve further consideration.
At the end of World War II the world had
a taste of what nuclear warfare can be like,
but the atomic bombings of Japan were minis-
cule in comparison with what today's weapons
can do. Technology has multiplied mankind's
capability for destroying himself to the point
that now nearly all life can be eliminated from
the earth with a go-ahead from the leaders of
the three most powerful nations of the world.
The Americans, the Soviets and the English
are each capable of committing nearly in-
stantaneous mass murder of great portions
of the world's population. Viewed from the
Fifth Commandment, this is clearly immoral,
for the Fifth Commandment states, "Thou
Shalt Not Kill," which read in the Greek de-
clares, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
MURDER IS ONE TYPE of killing: it is the
deliberate and malicious taking of the
life of another; it is offensive. Some moralists
say that in contrast, defensive killing may be
moral and at least is not immoral: just as
capital punishment protects the people of a
state by eliminating a dangerous criminal, mas-
sive retaliation or at least the threat of it
also offers something of a protection, they say.
This line of argument can lead to the idea
of a pre-emptive attack and to the notion that
such an attack is morally justifiable for pro-
tection, and it can result in the concept that
a criminal deed less than murder can be pun-
ished by capital punishment.
Yet capital punishment has never been shown
to deter, and any kind of pre-emptive attack
short of complete destruction almost inevitably
results in a counter attack that also causes
death.
In short, death-making causes more death-
making and once the process begins any pos-
sibility of deterrence ends. This is why it is
dangerous to pursue the notions of punish-
ment by death, or attack, for protection. De-
fensive killing can become just as offensive
as intentionally offensive killing.
LIFE IS NEEDED for the improvement of the
international scene. Any policy of death
disintegrates this key, since nothing can be
accomplished in a state of nonbeing, while
when there is being there is at least hope.
There is hope that a criminal can change and
become beneficial to his society; there is hope
that an oppressive regime can be overthrown
or at least liberalized. This is why there should
be no capital punishment; this is why it can
be better to be "Red" than dead.
For as long as there is life, there is the
possibility of betterment. As long as people
exist under Communist oppression, there is
the possibility of passive or even active resist-
ence. Even now the people of Poland fight
the Communist party through their churches
and in their schools; just in the past decade
there have been major rebellions in East Ger-
many and Hungary.
But to put human beings in a state of non-
being is to deny them a chance to rebel, their
chance to pressure for improvements, their
opportunity to resist. For this reason the
death of a nation is worse than the sub-
jugation of a nation to oppression or control
by a foreign power.
THIS RAISES a- means-ends problem. For a
democratic civilization the means should
always fit the ends, but there is danger that
both can be destroyed. A civilization can con-
duct a policy of peace for an end of peace,
but if it is bombed its good means will be
of no avail. It is hard to keep means con-
sistant with ends when an enemy feels no
need to do likewise.
The ends a democratic society may wish to
preserve may be freedom, due process of law
and government responsible to the people.
Yet not only these ends but the whole fiber
of a society can be destroyed by a nuclear
attack. In this case, the threat of retaliation
would be justified, pragmatically if not morally.
But the carrying out of that threat may
be immoral, since this involves taking lives,
including many -innocent lives. Most of the

Russian people are against not only nuclear
warfare but any kind of warfare; they are
bitter after losing one-tenth of their population
in World War II and they want peace. But
if their Communist rulers wage not peace but
war-nuclear war-what are we to do?
it t
Editorial Staff
FRED RUSSELL KRAMER .................. Co-Editor
PETER STEINBERGER .................... Co-Editor
AL JONES ............................. Sports Editor
DENISE WACKER ....................... Night Editor
f*VV- f'. V A % TT* 4. ., t -tm.

THE POLICY of the Kennedy Administration,
as spelled out by Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara in his address at the University's
commencement in June, is this: in the event
of a nuclear war we will aim to destroy the
Soviet Union's military centers while leaving
her civilian population alone. But is this pos-
sible? As Rep James Roosevelt (D-Calif) points
out, this is a humane and considerate policy
but it is not practical.
There are two reasons why not. Many mili-
tary centers are located near, if not at, centers
of civilian population; a near miss would
result in the taking of innocent lives. Second,
the Soviet Union is a secretive country; the
only way we could be completely sure of wiping
out all her military cores (missile launching
bases may be hidden) would be to wipe out
all of the Soviet Union. This would be in-
humane and immoral.
The dilemma arises because the alternatives
under the present state of conditions are im-
moral. Pre-emptive attack would be grossly
immoral. Retaliation to an attack would be
immoral since innocent lives would be taken.
Perhaps an answer lies in adhering to a policy
that pledges action along other lines, and in
choosing the lesser of the evils that confront
us, such as the threat of retaliation.
BUT ALL THIS becomes meaningless when
a policy of threatened retaliation fails
-when it is most needed. For when retaliation
is "necessary," the threat-and the policy-
will have failed. It is like being pushed over
a cliff: you can grab your enemy and take
him with you or you can fall alone. The first
course of action is immoral as is any act of
revenge (Christ said that if you are slapped
on the one check, turn the other check also).
But the second course of action is defeatist.
It is important to keep in mind that suicide
can be just as immoral as murder, for both
cases mean killing. It could be suicide for the
United States government to remove the de-
terrent while the Communists have destroying
power and evil intentions. This would be im-
moral, just as pre-emptive attack or retaliation
are immoral. The deterrent and the threat of
retaliation lead to murder, but they are neces-
sary to prevent suicide.
And this lends more strength to the argu-
ment that it is better to be Red than dead. If
an act of dying is in effect an act of suicide,
the act of dying is immoral. Living under a
Communist tyranny may be immoral too-but
less so because the most basic value is life
itself. Without life the other values-liberty,
due process, government responsible to the
people- could not exist; without people there
would be no society, much less social ideals.
The existence of life is a prerequisite to the
existence of any other values; in this way dying
for your country or for freedom achieves
nothing and is defeatist.
DYING FOR FREEDOM, however, achieves
value in providing an example for future
generations. Your death at the hands of an
oppressor may inspire resistence among those
who remain. In this way it can be better to
be dead than Red.
The question weighs on how much good or
how much less evil will result out of a course
of action. If you can accomplish more as a
martyr, then it might be better to be dead.
If you can accomplish more in remaining alive
and in providing leadership and resisting op-
pression, then it may be better to be under
Communist domination.
If more good can be accomplished by the
threat of massive retaliation than by submis-
sion to enemy demands, then this would seem
to be the better course. But this principle of
international dealings does not work in matters
of capital punishment: when the threat of
the electric chair or gas chamber is instituted,
the rate of murders does not change much;
a man about to commit murder either feels
he will not be caught or does not rationalize
the consequences.
As long as our Communist enemies act ra-
tionally, the threat of retaliation may hold.
But if they act irrationally, nuclear warfare
with all its immoralities may result, and the
human species extinguished.
SUPPOSE WE LEARN that the bombs and
rockets are on the way and suppose we

cannot stop them from doing their work. Could
we retaliate and still act morally? Some say
the answer is yes-to protect the ,neutral land
of the world, as South America, from conquest
and oppression. This seems a legitimate an-
swer, and if this situation came up, retaliation
would be both moral and immoral-moral in
protecting the innocent of South America, im-
moral in killing the innocent of thebSoviet
Union. A pre-emptive attack. might be said
to be moral in this sense as well as immoral.
Hence, the deeds nations would commit in
a nuclear war may be compound in morality.
Furthermore, the degree of immorality would
over their government. Americans would be
depend on the degree of control a people have
more responsible than Russians since Ameri-

~ 7 7
1/
SA!
____ IN
"' "I r
---l
oMM7T E

AT THE CAMPUS:
Cry 'Wolfenden'
In Sheep's Clothing
ANOTHER sociological whodunit is upon us, but it is not the bad
second novel one might fear it to be. Made by the makers of "Sapp-
hire" (Michael Relph and Basil Dearden), "Victim" is roughly more of
the same, except that where "Sapphire" was about The Negro Prob-
lem, "Victim" is about The Homosexual Problem.

- -

UNDERSCORE:
The People' and Government

By PHILIP SUTIN
Daily Staff Writer
ONE OF THE most often used
phrases on the editorial page
is "the people." Some writers think
that all policy decisions-especially
the ones they are opposed to-
should be taken to "the people"
for approval. Others see "the
people" as the ends of social and
economic justice.
Yet "the people" are never de-
fined. Their identity and powers
have never been spelled out. Their
limitations have never been delin-
eated.
"The people" are the mass ci-
tizenry of the country. They are
not any particular group, but
everyone in aggregate. Under
American tradition and law, so-
ereign power flows from them.
* * *
THIS DEFINITION hides many
things. It obscures the individual
and the conflicting groups that
make up our' society. Disagree-
ments and divergencies are hidden
as "the people" are taken as one.
"The people" are the majority,
but their powers are limited. These
stop at the individual whose
thoughts. beliefs, speech and pri-
vate life cannot be tampered by
any mass organization be it gov-
ernment or the mob.
If "the people" were allowed to
have their say in everything, then
there would be none of the basic
individual freedoms. Dissent would
be squelched; there would be a
state religion; conformity would
be the rule.
* * *
THUS the Bill of Rights sets
limits to majoritarianism. The
first and fifth amendments are
the individual's basic protection
against the majority. The 14th
Amendment extends these 14th
dividual guarantees to all legal
situations, erasing the federal lim-
itations of the Bill of Rights.
These safeguards allow diver-
sity among "the people" to flour-
ish. It permits the wide variety
of thought and action conducive

to progress and happiness and sets
the narrowest of limitations on
enforced consensus.
The diverse opinion of "the
people" is another major limita-
tion to their direct rule. Agree-
ment could be reached on very
basic issues-the God, motherhood
and country of the politicians'
cliches. Otherwise, they are split
into many diverse elements, con-
verging and diverging, depending
on the issue. In this complex
world, if every policy were taken
to "the people," nothing would get
done.. "The people" would never
agree.
"The people" must rule through
governmental machinery respon-
sive to their diverse needs and
interest. Every fixed term, "the
people" decide who shall rule for
them and endorse, by the election
of officials, the general policy the
government will take. Then the
government is given a free hand
limited only by the protections
guaranteed the individual, the op-
position and public opinion. When
the term is up, "the people" re-
evaluate their government and
give a new mandate.
"THE PEOPLE" are still left
limited power of direct rule. In-
itiative, referendum and recall are
available when governmental
channels become unresponsive.
Governmental responsibility to
"the people" is the other side of
the coin. In this complex age,
"the people" are not able to meet
all their needs by their own efforts
.and it becomes the responsibility
of government to make sure that
they are met.
These needs fall into two cate-
gories. One is social-the ordering
of society so that all have an
equal chance to succeed at their
endeavors. The second is economic
--the assurance that all have a
decent standard of living.
* * *
GOVERNMENT must be the
guardian of civil rights and lib-
erty. It must make sure that no
individual is denied his opportun-
ity because of race, religion, na-

tional origin, sex or economic
status. This is a complex job in-
volving fair employment practices
acts, housing legislation and regu-
lations, human relations commis-
sions, the courts and other anti-
discrimination means and meas-
ures.
Civil liberties-the individuals
rights of free speech, religion,
press, assembly and others-are
also in the province of govern-
mental protection.
Such protection is the hallmark
of the American legal system. De-
spite the many guarantees, the
courts and sometimes the execu-
tive branch of government stands
ready to defend civil liberties
when the need arises.
The economic needs are less
clear-cut and sometimes conflict
with libertarian principles. To ef-
fect governmental programs it is
often necessary to curtail the in-
dividual's freedom of action. Yet
it is justifiable because these ac-
tions involve group life and often
of a selfish nature beyond the
realm of individual freedom.
THE GOVERNMENT must as-
sure "the people" decent housing,
education, livelihood, medical care
and availability of other social
services. These are so complex
and expensive today that not all
individuals can afford to obtain
them without governmental as-
sistance. As these are necessary
to assure equal opportunity, it is
the government's responsibility to
make them available.
Further, the government must
protect "the people" from exploi-
tation by special minority interest
groups. Labor and anti-trust reg-
ulations are prime expression of
this sort of responsibility.
Thus "the people" and their
government have a two-fold rela-
tionship. They are its sovereign
rulers who give it the mandate
and direction to operate. In re-
turn the government is the guar-
dian of "the people against them-
selves and the vicissitudes of the
age.

And the gang's all there: the
wise old police chief who gently
lances the boil of bigotry (not to
mention solving the crime), the
tragic social group, helpless vie-
tims of their own weakness, and
all your other old favorites.
SAPPHIRE apparently w e n t
over just fine in this country as a
slice of Soho and, so as not to
throw away a good thing, Victim
is more British than even Brooks
Brothers could stand. The hero is
a barrister, and so there are quick
references to "taking silk," and
lines like, "Lord knows why they
call it a brief, it never is," to im-
part an authentic legal flavor.
The barrister (played by Dirk
Bogarde) is a homosexual trying
to find a blackmailer who is prey-
ing on other homosexuals, one of
whom hanged himself to protect
Bogarde's reputation. In order to
convict theblackmailer, the bar-
rister will have to enlist the aid
of the police and testify in court,
moves which will ruin his bril-
liant career and finish off his
already shaky marriage.
* * *
IN THE end, he decides to
martyr his future to help the law
in a larger sense. But this brings
his wife, who really always loved
him, back into his arms.
None of this happens, however,
before we are exposed to a 90-
second discussion summary of the
Wolfenden report (in sheep's
clothing), and a running exhibi-
tion of every conceivable type of
homosexual, including ones who
are but don't look it, ones who
aren't but do, and many, many
others.
Since this is, in name anyway,
a mystery, I won't reveal any sec-
rets but it's only fair to forewarn
you that like most mysteries,
nothing's really cleared up much,
plot-wise, until the end. There is
the full measure of melodrama,
false leads, and so forth; things
ain't who you think they is.
THE background music in "Vic-
tim" is a little more sophisticated
than Sapphire. There is now the
use of a gripping leitmotiv to
indicate when a blackmailer is
around. Listen for it.
Scenery and costumes are noth-
ing extravagant, except maybe
for the inside of Westminster, and
the film is in black and white,
which, surprisingly enough, is not
too much different from the local
color used in "Sapphire,"
"Victim" is definitely an export
product, and to this end is highly
calculated. A side product of all
the calculations, however, is the
fact that the plot manages to
resolve itself quite neatly (if ob-
viously) into a symmetrical set
of ironic results. A chance to
shape the chancery is sacrificed
for a resulting bigger effect on it.
A marriage imperiled by homo-
sexuality is finally strengthened
because of it. And so forth.
In all, the film is only a little
clumsy, and quite entertaining, if
you don't mind being talked down
to. It's probably worth seeing; who
knows, Relph and Dearden may
wind up as an institution, like
Alfred Hitchcock, or corn flakes.
-Dick Pollinger
Social Logic
SOCIALISM, like the ancient idea
from which it springs, confuses
the distinction between govern-
ment and society. As a result of
this, every time we object to
things being done by government,
the socialists conclude that we ob-
ject to its being done at all. We
disapprove of state education.
Then the socialists say we are op-
posed to any education. We object
to a state-enforced equality. Then
they say that we are against equal-
ity. And so on, and so on. It is as
if the socialists were to accuse us
of not wanting persons to eat be-
cause we do not want the state

to raise grain.
-The Freemant

-wWwwwonowkwo

LETTERS
to the
EDITOR

To the Editor:
ENJOYED READING the article
by Mark Slobin, in the August 1
Daily, regarding the revival of in-
terest in the recorder.
It may interest other readers to
know that Ann Arbor has a flour-
ishing community of recorder
players. The Ann Arbor Recorder
Society has over 50 active mem-
bers and offers a program of con-
certs, lectures and workshops at
all levels during the year.
In his article, Mr. Slobin makes
the statement ". . . there is little
solo literature (for the recorder)
outside of the large amount of
simple songs ..
* * *
THIS IS FAR from the truth,
In the Baroque period, when com-
posers scored music for "flute" or
"flauto," they intended the use of
the alto recorder.(The term "tra-
verso" or "traversiere" was used
to indicate the transverse flute.)
Thus, the flute parts in Bach's
Brandenburg Concert Nos. 2 and
4, and in many of his Church
Cantatas and in several oratorios
were originally written for the re-
corder. Handel wrote six very
beautiful sonatas specifically for
the recorder. Telemann left a
wealth of wonderful solo music
for the recorder, including solo
sonatas, triosonatas, concerti and.
even unaccompanied fantasies,
which all require the highest de-
gree of technical skill and vir-
tuosity in the performer. Some of
the other composers who contrib-
uted to the solo literature for the
recorder were H. and D. Purcell,
Loeillet, Mattheson, Schickhardt,
A. Scarlatti, Quantz, Fasch, Vival-
di, Pepusch, Couperin and Bois-
mortier.
* * *
IT IS TRUE that the greater
part of the solo literature is for
the alto recorder. However, there
are two very challenging concerti,
one by Sammartini and one by
Woodcock, for soprano recorder
and strings. There is even an orig-
inal triosonata for bass recorder,
viola and continuo by C. P. E.
Bach. And, of course, there are
the Vivaldi flautino concerti (now-
adays played on the piccolo) which
are charming on the sopranino
recorder.
--Carolyn Rabson
Arms Race'
"ALREADY we beg the Germans
for arms orders, the French for
pre-payment of debt, to ease the
pressure on the dollar. A few
years ago they were the recipients
of our charity, now they confer
favors. Mr. Kennedy is rightly
concerned about the proliferation
of nuclear arms and the develop-
ment of independent nuclear de-
terrents. But nothing can stop this
development except an agreement
between the two present super-
powers for a disarmed world in
a new system of law ...
"In Japan, the other day anoth-
er warning bell tolled when the
82-year-old, pre-war Premier Yo-
shida, its leading elder statesman,
told the Japan-American society
in Tokyo (Washington Star, July
12) that Japan may have to de-
velop its own nuclear arms "to de-
fend the Orient from the unfor-
tunate threat of Communism." It
was under cover of pre-war pro-
testations about the fear of Com-
munism that Japan began its at-
tacks on China, on the British and
French empires, and finally on
Pearl Harbor. Then too, a second-
rank power toppled the pillars of
world respectability, and unleash-
ed the storms that bore their most
bitter fruit at Hiroshima."
-I. F. Stone's Weekly

I

11

Fy

1t1

II

FEIIFER

THAT?

ITS MINE, T 15 T~WHAT
IT 15s. IK$ PQUIET!

WHA'r 1-
Tf U-
1

r. -~

599#9'- 'f6'L
W)A!T MAMMA
T1o UA??
AGU R[69*r JUST'
ON6 OP (qOU 66t

qfOU MWAM U3 '5UPPME? 'ro BE
60HE MO (A WM VE~q SAP FOR
WJT' 6UPPO'W
C.
iI

I NEVCR SAW Af~q- tO - U QUIEQfT
u~ QOWM OR

*

_U-I.me,
IT Wf-

i-R7 R1 THE

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan