2008-09-05, 03:25 PM
Some scenes in the books Speak of the Dead by Orson Scott Card kind of address your question.
First, why honor the dead? In the book, the civilians honor the two dead scientists, who save their lives and save them from further loss of family by finding a cure (more like a treatment but that's irrelevant) for a deadly virus. They do not suffer much grief from the two's deaths because they are happy for themselves and their family, but this honoring of the dead, in my view, is their means of "the least we could do to pay them back for the service they have done for us." Similarly, we honor our dead soldiers, not because we feel individual grief for them, but because it is a means to pay respect to someone who died in the purpose of serving our country, for us. (How efficiently or how enthusiastically some did it is not part of the equation for most cases.) Yeah, I suppose one does "move on" in a way, but I don't believe that the pain will truly go away if you were really close. It will also never be the same. I haven't had the experience, luckily for me, of losing a really close person, so I can only leave it to others' experiences and my speculation.
Second, I believe you are asking why we honor the dead more than we do the maimed? That, I believe, is due to the belief held in many people's minds that death is the ultimate price one can pay. "Hey, at least you're still alive."
I think your views are rather heartless and your downplaying of the loss of one's life or the loss of a loved one is rather rude, considering you've never been through either. Sure, most politicians use "honoring the dead" casually, and many funerals are held just because it's traditional, but I believe honoring the dead is important.
However, I do agree with your suggestion that the disabled soldiers who have came back from war should be honored more than they are now. Unfortunately, "SOLDIER HURT FOR COUNTRY" just isn't as attention-grabbing as "SOLDIER DIED FOR COUNTRY!" Not to mention, even the dead are sometimes nothing more than just statistics.
First, why honor the dead? In the book, the civilians honor the two dead scientists, who save their lives and save them from further loss of family by finding a cure (more like a treatment but that's irrelevant) for a deadly virus. They do not suffer much grief from the two's deaths because they are happy for themselves and their family, but this honoring of the dead, in my view, is their means of "the least we could do to pay them back for the service they have done for us." Similarly, we honor our dead soldiers, not because we feel individual grief for them, but because it is a means to pay respect to someone who died in the purpose of serving our country, for us. (How efficiently or how enthusiastically some did it is not part of the equation for most cases.) Yeah, I suppose one does "move on" in a way, but I don't believe that the pain will truly go away if you were really close. It will also never be the same. I haven't had the experience, luckily for me, of losing a really close person, so I can only leave it to others' experiences and my speculation.
Second, I believe you are asking why we honor the dead more than we do the maimed? That, I believe, is due to the belief held in many people's minds that death is the ultimate price one can pay. "Hey, at least you're still alive."
I think your views are rather heartless and your downplaying of the loss of one's life or the loss of a loved one is rather rude, considering you've never been through either. Sure, most politicians use "honoring the dead" casually, and many funerals are held just because it's traditional, but I believe honoring the dead is important.
However, I do agree with your suggestion that the disabled soldiers who have came back from war should be honored more than they are now. Unfortunately, "SOLDIER HURT FOR COUNTRY" just isn't as attention-grabbing as "SOLDIER DIED FOR COUNTRY!" Not to mention, even the dead are sometimes nothing more than just statistics.