learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions regarding war ethics and morals have been present throughout history. Ethics is defined as the respecting of human rights and overall avoiding uncessary harm. Morals are defined as the judgment of human behavior. Both ideas are considered heavily during war because human lives are involved and people question how far you can push ethics and morals. The ethics of war are constantly being challenged by varying regions and their beliefs regarding these topics. In order to actually make a change in a place that holds a lot of power such as any nation across the world a big event needs to happen and leave a big impact. Unfortunately, this usually involves unsafe measures such as bombings, killings, and great destruction of certain regions. But all of these leave great impacts and the change ends up being made. It is a challenging idea because are the lives of people now worth the change for the lives of people in a future advanced society? Wouldn't this mean sacrificing and going against morals and ethics if we have to take these current human lives? But if these lives are taken aren't the ethics and morals still being protected and upheld because the future lives are being kept safe? These are the kinds of questions that are brought to the forefront of war discussions and need to continue to be brought to the forefront. Ethics are always going to be challenged when a great change needs to be made. Unfortunately, human lives will most likely end up being the collateral damage of that and usually do make the change possible. However, I am not sure what else is as valuable and worthy as a human life to make as big an impact when it is gone or taken away. The questions above touch on this kind of uncertainty of war. I think that it's up to a certain nation as to how far they will go in order to make a change and in order to do what they think is best for their own country. Whatever the nation decides to do, ethical or not, they are most likely more worried about the current state of power of their region and its overall stability. Although it may seem vicious and violent, suffering is necessary in some sense to create change. One has to hit rock bottom in order to know how bad it really is and how to get out of it. Countries can apply this same kind of thinking to their decision-making, in political choices, for their civilians. They may make changes that cause the civilians suffering or pain but the overall change needing to be made most likely always gets completed. While in other cases, it may not because of how far the nation took in causing its people certain suffering and pain. If the people are starving to death, being worked to death, and driven to their death in other ways then the country will never see the change it wanted. The people will become furious and will rebel eventually. Whereas if the changes are gradual and cause slight hurting the civilians may not even notice that these things are being implemented into their society. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse and the current government in power does not do anything to counteract this change then otherworldly powers need to step in. If the country's nation doesn't see the issue in all of the suffering it has caused its people then that is where the issue lies and where other people in power need to step in to protect those whose voices are being silenced. Organizations such as the United Nations and those like it work for the people who are being silenced and help them in almost all areas of their lives. It is important though, that a nation never gets this out of hand because it can lead to the deaths of many and its overall own destruction.

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on April 14, 2025 21:00

The Khmer Rouge had some serious flaws that eventually led to their downfall, for example, trying to wipe out class, education, family connections, and even basic human life. They wanted to build a completely classless society by getting rid of money, markets, and private property. Everyone was stripped of their identity and ruled by one controlling authority, all in the name of something they called Angkar. But this kind of system was never going to work. The idea of getting rid of class sounds equal on the surface, but it’s just not realistic. People are different—some have skills, others don’t, and trying to force everyone into the same mold just creates a whole new kind of inequality. When they switched everything to a barter system, if you didn’t have something useful to trade, you were left with nothing. That led to poverty, starvation, and total economic collapse. The whole country fell apart because of it. In addition, the Khmer Rouge wanted to ban all forms of intellect to start a completely blank and moldable society with no room for different opinions. Without educated people, there are no doctors, engineers, teachers, and more, but these are people who can fix problems to save people, and without them, a society can't function. Intellectualism kills curiosity so people don’t question authoritarian rule or think for themselves. However, in the long run, it creates a weaker society because while everyone around them is advancing, they are slowly getting weaker and more vulnerable to colonialism and attacks. Millions of people were forced to work in camps doing draining tasks with little food and rest, this led to starvation, disease, and death on a massive scale. Even though the Khmer Rouge said they were communists, what they did didn’t match up and was more of a dystopian agrarian situation. They wanted to get rid of all class and money, but real communism still believed people should get paid for working. It's more about sharing things fairly, not getting rid of everything. Another fundamental problem was the use of Angkar which was almost like a big brother from 1984. I think Angkar was kind of like Big Brother from 1984 which is this mysterious, all-powerful force that controlled everything but didn’t have a real face. People were terrified of it because they were told they could see and know everything, so no one dared to speak out. The Khmer Rouge told the Cambodian people that Angkar was like a pineapple, it had eyes everywhere which caused people to self-monitor everything they did. It made people feel totally alone and scared since even family and friends could turn on them to please Angkar. In the end, it just created a society full of fear and silence, not unity or strength. I think the real issue wasn’t communism itself (because there are current successful communist countries) but more so how the Khmer Rouge twisted and forced it in such an extreme and violent way. They tried to erase everything that made people human like individuality, education, family, and choice, and that kind of control will always lead to suffering. Their version of communism wasn’t about fairness or equality because they still had Angkar as an ultimate power, it was about power and fear and that’s what truly destroyed the country.

I think that the most compelling idea in my peers' post is their common on how the Khmer Rouge tried to act like Angkar was kind of like Big brother from 1984 to Cambodians. I fully agree with this especially because we can see especially in the film we watched that they always spoke of Angkar in a weird dystopian way personifying this thing that wasn’t actually physically there, almost like an idea of a god in a sense. They would do this a lot by saying things like “Angkar needs this” making it sound like Angkar was a live person with needs when in all reality it wasn’t it was just the general group of the Khmer Rouge aiming to control people. But even though people couldn’t see this physical existence of Angkar they still avoided crossing it because they were aware of it’s henchman so to speak which was the Khmer Rouge. I fully agree with everything that peer said in this post because I feel as though they really well explained just how dystopian and watchful the Khmer Rouge really were. They do this by talking about how people were always being monitored which led them to be fearful to do really anything that would have been forbidden by the Khmer Rouge because they saw what had happened to the others they were imprisoned with.

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on April 14, 2025 21:00

The Khmer Rouge had some serious flaws that eventually led to their downfall, for example, trying to wipe out class, education, family connections, and even basic human life. They wanted to build a completely classless society by getting rid of money, markets, and private property. Everyone was stripped of their identity and ruled by one controlling authority, all in the name of something they called Angkar. But this kind of system was never going to work. The idea of getting rid of class sounds equal on the surface, but it’s just not realistic. People are different—some have skills, others don’t, and trying to force everyone into the same mold just creates a whole new kind of inequality. When they switched everything to a barter system, if you didn’t have something useful to trade, you were left with nothing. That led to poverty, starvation, and total economic collapse. The whole country fell apart because of it. In addition, the Khmer Rouge wanted to ban all forms of intellect to start a completely blank and moldable society with no room for different opinions. Without educated people, there are no doctors, engineers, teachers, and more, but these are people who can fix problems to save people, and without them, a society can't function. Intellectualism kills curiosity so people don’t question authoritarian rule or think for themselves. However, in the long run, it creates a weaker society because while everyone around them is advancing, they are slowly getting weaker and more vulnerable to colonialism and attacks. Millions of people were forced to work in camps doing draining tasks with little food and rest, this led to starvation, disease, and death on a massive scale. Even though the Khmer Rouge said they were communists, what they did didn’t match up and was more of a dystopian agrarian situation. They wanted to get rid of all class and money, but real communism still believed people should get paid for working. It's more about sharing things fairly, not getting rid of everything. Another fundamental problem was the use of Angkar which was almost like a big brother from 1984. I think Angkar was kind of like Big Brother from 1984 which is this mysterious, all-powerful force that controlled everything but didn’t have a real face. People were terrified of it because they were told they could see and know everything, so no one dared to speak out. The Khmer Rouge told the Cambodian people that Angkar was like a pineapple, it had eyes everywhere which caused people to self-monitor everything they did. It made people feel totally alone and scared since even family and friends could turn on them to please Angkar. In the end, it just created a society full of fear and silence, not unity or strength. I think the real issue wasn’t communism itself (because there are current successful communist countries) but more so how the Khmer Rouge twisted and forced it in such an extreme and violent way. They tried to erase everything that made people human like individuality, education, family, and choice, and that kind of control will always lead to suffering. Their version of communism wasn’t about fairness or equality because they still had Angkar as an ultimate power, it was about power and fear and that’s what truly destroyed the country.

I also argued that one of the Khmer Rouge’s fundamental problems was trying to get rid of people's identities. I also agree that not having classes is unrealistic because of different skill sets, but also in order for a society to work, it needs to have lower and upper classes. Now, the lower class doesn’t have to be incredibly poor but just have less money than others because it stimulates the economy. A compelling idea is that while the Khmer Rouge were trying to get rid of classes, it enabled one to themselves. They put themselves above the Cambodians when in reality, it should’ve all been equal. I also agree that in getting rid of skilled workers, the Khmer Rouge doomed itself because there is a reason those workers existed in the first place; they are necessary, and could be another reason so many people died. I also agree that the Khmer Rouge had wrong interpretations of how communism should work, however, it still would’ve failed even if they were able to create perfect communism. While there are communist societies, those places are not prosperous. I think that while yes the Khmer Rouge interpreted communism harshly, there is no good way. It always ends in people suffering, the Khmer Rouge just amplified the suffering. Overall, I agree with everything that was stated, and said some of the same points in my response.

Originally posted by cherrybacon on April 14, 2025 15:01

"The idea that innocent people must die to build a “better society” is insane. Progress shouldn’t come at the cost of innocent lives. If anything, those responsible for systematic corruption or oppression should be the ones held accountable. Not the everyday citizens who are simply trying to live their lives. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, outside forces such as the United States or the United Nations should step in. We cannot allow nations to destroy themselves hoping for positive change while we watch from the sidelines. The UN has a responsibility to act when human rights are being violated...

"Change is definitely necessary in many places around the world but the means in which it is achieved matters just as much as the change itself. True national transformation must be rooted in compassion, justice, and the protection of human rights- not acts of violence against civilians. A better future can’t be built on a foundation of fear, suffering, or mass execution and killings. Real progress must uplift people, not silence or eliminate them. The international community has both a moral and practical responsibility and obligation to make sure that efforts for change do not come at the expense of human life. Only then can change take place successfully."

One great idea from this post is how the ends do not justify the means when it comes to societal change. Often, these reform movements claiming to be revolutionary have a goal of speed, when true change takes time. One of the reasons a society like this has never been successful is because no time is given to change people’s minds or overturn established ideas they have in their heads about how society should be run. It takes time to undo the mindset of imperialism and capitalism, and to demand that everything and everyone associated with the old ideas be purged is ridiculous. One of these collective societies will only truly be stable when people are shown the value of the way of life and given an equal chance to survive and thrive within them—to purge people who are skeptical or disagree is counterproductive. You can’t have stability unless you get them to change their minds, because then you will have more people for your ideas who can actually explain why they might be beneficial. To commit mass murder to establish these ideas is insane and only embitters the people left who the new system needs to embrace it.

I agree that the UN must step in when a country begins self-destructing. It goes beyond a question of sovereignty—when a government is endangering the millions it has sworn to protect, there is a problem that must be solved. I do wonder more specifically what you think the UN should do.

The Khmer Rouge’s reign in Cambodia was devastatingly brutal and merciless, it also ultimately resulted in a tragic genocide that took the lives of millions of innocents, from political opponents to Buddhist monks who faced incomprehensibly cruel executions, daunting forced labor, harsh starvation, and painful deaths from diseases and infections. Without a doubt, the root of this evil and the complete destruction of a beautiful country and peoples was the Communist ideology. In Cambodia, it seeped into the minds of the Khmer Rouge who sought to create a radically classless society by any means necessary and at the extent of anyone; everyone was deemed unimportant and easily replaceable under the Angkor system. While some might also try to make the argument that these atrocities are a reflection of the Khmer Rogue's revolution and personality alone, in the end, it's hard to argue that communism didn't play a center role when the Khmer Rouge’s extreme interpretation and brutal execution of millions was a result of the communist ideology that led to such widespread suffering.

Fundamentally, the Khmer Rouge's vision was built on the deeply flawed and unrealistic belief that all aspects of modernity, education, class and foreign influence was inherently evil and needed to be completely eradicated from Cambodian society. Sok Udom Deth emphasizes the explicitly when he wrote in The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea (2009), how the Khmer Rouge viewed intellectuals and the wealthy as enemies of the revolution and the country specifically. They wrongfully believed that the only way to a pure and united Cambodia was through extreme forced labor in the fields and re-education in camps scattered throughout the countryside. This radical belief sought to break away from any forms of tradition and progress that did not perfectly align with the Khmer Rogue's concept of communism.

The Khmer Rouge leadership, especially under cruel communist leader Pol Pot, demonstrated extreme paranoia that manifested into authoritarianism that turned against and prosecuted its own party members. This was an unfortunate result of the Khmer Rogue belief that “tt is better to kill ten innocent people than to let one guilty person go free.” Mass executions were usually resulted in thousands being tortured and then eventually killed, which was not a result of communist principles alone but of the dictatorship that derived from communist ideology and went completely unchecked for years. As Samantha Power brilliantly emphasizes in her articles A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002) (Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking), the Khmer Rouge were prone to ruling in complete secret as paranoia infused every aspect of their lives and every action they ever took, while the Western world looked on, choosing to remain unaware and unwilling to act despite the undeniable evidence of atrocities. Their secrecy combined with the international community's reluctance to intervene ultimately allowed them to continue inflicting brutal atrocities and horrors unfolded without any pressure to stop or accountability.

This ultimately leads to the broader question we must all ask regarding whether or not brutality and violence is inherent to communism. With historical examples ranging from Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union to Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party to Ho Chi Minh's eventual communism state, the pattern is undeniable and demonstrates that communist regimes have always been prone to widespread human rights abuses while also being careful with the importance in distinguishing an ideology from its out of touch execution. Communism, like any political belief or system, can be interpreted and applied in many different ways ways. However, communism's disregard for class and education, its anger at intellectuals and the wealthy, and the blame it places on all things foreign or class related allows pure evil and hatred to fester and grow, ultimately resulting in the brutal communist regimes we're so prone to seeing.

Ultimately, the tragedy of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge underscores the danger of radical ideological extremism combined with authoritarianism and dictatorships. It wasn’t just communism that led to the Khmer Rogue's brutal regime and leadership but communism did play a major role in how said leadership rejected tradition and humanity in pursuit of an impossible to achieve society that has never and will never exist.

Originally posted by Merry on April 14, 2025 20:04

The way that one can draw the line between which means are ethical or unethical for bringing about change is analysing whether or not the technique that you are using is going to bring harm amongst anyone. If you find that the techniques you are going to use to bring about this change is going to harm people then you can tell it is incredibly unethical which is a sense that the Khmer Rouge was completely void of, or just chose to ignore which is something we saw a lot during the film First They Killed My Father. In that film we see the unethical treatment that the Khmer Rouge uses to try and achieve their goal of “equality” that really just involves taking from people in order to bring them down to the same “level” as the working class well telling them all that they need to be punished for their selfishness and murdering millions of innocent adults and children. And while a vision of equality is always benevolent, anyone should be able to judge whether or not they're taking the ethical route to get there. There is also no amount of suffering that is tolerable to bring about a “better society” because any progressive or improved version of society should be completely void of suffering not built upon it. Therefore, to kill millions just to be able to say that you built a rather dystopian improved version of the world people once knew would be incredibly hypocritical because the streets and homes of these “better societies” would be haunted by those whose lives were taken to get there. You can also really see though just how much the Khmer Rouge lacked any sort of acknowledgement for what they were doing because they believed that what they were doing was some god-sent revolution as stated in the article called “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” stating “Many people initially greeted Khmer Rouge soldiers with joy, believing that peace had finally arrived. Before long, they would find themselves walking into a living hell.” This also shows us how well they were able to trick the public into supporting them at first by describing their idea of this perfect society, yet they failed to acknowledge the fact that their idea has been tried before in various ways and has never once worked. They also managed to fully make people believe that they would not be harmed in any way shape or form showing us how well they were able to manipulate citizens once again showing their void of ethics. In a normal situation, when leaders are seeing that their approach towards improving society isn’t working, one should immediately end whatever it is that they are doing and come up with a more beneficial way to improve society that doesn’t involve mass atrocities. However, in the case of the Khmer Rouge that was something that needed interference to be ended, yet that interference didn’t come when millions of people were dying due to their twisted approach to “benefitting” society, that was truly meant to fully take over the former democratic country.

The most compelling idea in this response is “There is no amount of suffering that is tolerable to bring about a ‘better society’ because any progressive or improvised version of society should be completely void of suffering, not built upon it. I personally disagree with this statement to a certain extent. I think that in some senses it is justifiable as long as those who are suffering aren’t innocent people. So if the people suffering are those who are corrupt and who murdered other people making it so society isn’t a safe place for them, I wouldn't mind if they had to suffer in order to make society improve. This is the same as people facing the death penalty. So they may have to suffer in order to die but their death, depending on the reason they were given the death penalty of course, may help improve society. Now if the author of this response would’ve said there is no suffering that is tolerable amongst innocent civilians, I would 100% agree with this point no questions asked. I also like the point that “The streets and homes of these ‘better societies’ would be haunted by those whose lives were taken to get there.” I think this was a very good metaphor to use. There are a couple mechanical things going on with this piece. I think some of the sentences are a little long and could be broken up better. This piece could also just simply have more punctuation with added commas throughout. Other than that this was a very well written response.

Some believe that the Cambodian Genocide demonstrates the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of communism as an ideology by the Khmer Rouge leaders, without their being anything inherently wrong with the idea of communism; however, we must also take into account that these leaders received an extensive education and knew exactly what kind of society they wanted to create. Without a historical reference for a successful interpretation of communism, it seems that the groups in power always retain that power and take advantage of the public through violence, poverty, and the elimination of education. Even if there were no fundamental problems with communist ideology, there are countless fundamental issues with how communism has been implemented throughout history. In this way, even if real communism was achievable through ethical means, perhaps we as a society are not capable of achieving it.