This is a fair question, and the answer is: not enough. My moral codes sets up very high standards, and I don’t live up to them as I should. That is a fault of my resolve, not of the standards themselves.
Daniel
It could be a fault of the standards. If your standards are too high, such that you can’t live up to them, then maybe you’re wrong to have such high standards.
Whether someone lives up to the standards has no bearing on their status as standards. On the contrary, at least one of the world’s major religions, practiced for nearly 2000 years, has as a bedrock principle that nobody can live up to its standards.
Daniel
Then that religion is morally flawed. Standards are made for men and women…men and women aren’t made for standards. Unless you have some hope of living up to the standards you set for yourself, what’s the point in even trying?
Me, of course. That’s the nature of morality. If I thought yours, or Hitler’s, was superior, it’d become my own lickety-split.
Telling people that they’re doing something immoral isn’t forcing anything on them. Prompting action from them and nudging their consciences isn’t force.
The good that is done (and I acknowledge some small good can be done) would have to be very big to outweigh the initial and continuing wrong of the war itself - much bigger than it looks to date. And while I don’t wish them active harm, I could care less whether soldiers come home safe - I’d much rather their victims were still alive and their country unoccupied.
I do have that right, as does anyone. And no, we don’t have to risk anything, we’re not the ones in the military. It’s a complete non sequitur - we are not in the same context as the soldier, we don’t have to risk jack.
Fair’s got nothing to do with it. LHoD doesn’t have to take the same risk because he didn’t volunteer to be a potential killer on the wrong side in an immoral war. Why is the onus now on him to pay the price?
“Some” would be wrong. Abortion’s not immoral.
I’m not “imposing” anything on you or the Marines. If my opinions are so wounding to you or them, my advice is to grow a thicker skin. You have the same avenues of debate open to you as I do. If you feel a particular war is moral, argue for it. I think the case for the immorality of this current one is obvious, but hey, maybe you have some genius insights…
That’s your opinion only, of course. The point is that since morality is to such a great extent personal, sweeping declarations of what is or is not moral are pretty irrelevant. It’s not really so much that you have the right to make such declarations – which of course you do – but that you should also include reasons that people should listen to your declarations. “That’s my opinion” doesn’t make your opinion relevant to your listener. You’ve given me no more reason to listen to, much less respect, your POV on the issue of war than an anti-abortionist prompts me to listen to, much less respect their POV on the issue of abortion. So you may think you’re “prodding consciences” by doing so, but ISTM more likely you’ll just annoy people, because why should they listen to you?
I have a lot more time and patience for people who frame cogent anti-war arguments (not to mention cogent anti-abortion arguments) on fact-based grounds – grounds that are less squishy and subjective that “that’s immoral” or “that’s wrong.” To me, most morality-based arguments are about as useful and persuasive as arguing that asparagus tasted bad.
And I don’t have to adopt the opposite position in order to point out that your argument is a weak one.
And it’s not that hard to determine if this kind of argument is a weak one, either. If the rejoinder to the statment is “yes it is,” as in, “Abortion/war/whatever is not immoral!” “Yes it is!” “No, it’s not!” “Yes it is!” etc. etc. etc., then you can be pretty sure you are not convincing anyone.
The simple answer to this moral conundrum is surely to split the US military into functional units. On one hand there would be a defense force, committed to the military defense of the United States against all external aggression. Another branch, the ‘offense force’ could undertake the wars of aggression, invasions, military coups in South America & so forth.
Hold a strict demarcation of functions between those two. Join the former to fully satisfy any honorable custom or wish to ‘serve & defend your country’. Join the latter fully informed of the likely consequences. Simple really, a ‘defense force’ that means what it says and another branch of the services for something else.
I don’t really see what my payback is in repeating arguments made countless times before. It’s immoral because a country that was no threat was invaded. First aggressors are always in the wrong. Do I have to make that my sig?
If I was speaking to a Marine or a potential recruit, I’d use a larger framing argument. Here, I don’t feel the argument for the immorality of the war needs remaking every time I bring it up.
Arguments lots of people have made - in other threads. Here, I was strictly arguing a moral issue. If that’s not your thing, by all means, don’t bother. But you’re implying it’s my only objection to the war, and you’d be wrong. But it is my biggest.
This would be a highly relevant opinion if we were choosing what side-dish to share. Same-same for choosing what profession to enter into - the consequences of our choices are important (or, I think they are).
You do if all you have is “is not”. “It is too moral” doesn’t counter what I’ve said (which I have backed up with more than just my say-so).
I don’t think that is quite as simple as you contemplate. National Guard units have been integrated into the rest of the Army and Air Force for a pretty good reason.
However, that being said, there are numerous State Defense Forces in the United States - about half of the states have them. These can be activated by the governor only, and cannot deploy outside of the state. Federal law prohibits their incorporation into regular National Guard forces.
They are used for numerous duties, including disaster relief and carrying out the barracks duties of National Guard forces when they are deployed overseas.
Go right ahead. It’s your opinion, and would be about as relevant to me as if you made your sig “I like peas.”
I never said “It is too moral,” which is clear from my statement that I don’t have to adopt the opposite position to point out that your argument is a weak one. The fact that you would construe my argument as my having said “it is too moral” indicates you’ve not actually gotten my point, but I find I don’t actually care whether you get it or not. Toodles.
You were the one who said I had to back things up. Seemed to me like you’ve missed every other thread where this crap has been hashed out, so yes, I’d say iyt was relevant to you.
But by not actually pointing out how the argument is weak, you are, in fact, supporting the opposite view, if only by implication. So far all I’ve gotten is that you don’t like arguments from morality. That’s fine, but that’s a weakness in you, not the argument. And like I said, the moral objection isn’t my only one.