Yeah, I think you missed the point of my example in the hero thread. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. I happen to think there are too many people using too many resources in some parts of the world. That’s fine right now, when there’s squat I can do about it other than support charities and agitate politically. Plus I still bred, so clearly I’m not consistent there.
But with Absolute Power? I just might be tempted to do something about it, for the Greater Good. And that leads you to the scenario in Watchmen. Which is all kinds of fucked up.
Which was my point.
It’s their country?
Resistance to invasion.
Wait - if we’ve delegated the right to the cop, does he or doesn’t he have that right? I’m confused?
And if he takes that right by force, by, say, invading your country, does he still have the moral right?
FYI, I’m away from now until Monday, if there’s further posts, I’ll address them then. Until then, I leave you with this message from our sponsors:
“Yankee Go Home!”
Yes you do. You just have to weigh your conscience against consequences and be willing to take the latter be it permanent exile or imprisonment. Not an easy choice and the question remains - where do you personally draw the moral line.
Great Og on a pounding pogo stick. Just when I think I know from obtuse, you take it to a whole new level. Have you read the OP? Do you actually have the first fucking clue what this thread is about? Do you realise that you’ve just suggested that we exclude from consideration the very thing we have been considering for the last two pages?
I just don’t get this at all. It’s not George Bush who’s kicking down doors in Anbar and taking names. If Bush threw a war and nobody came, it wouldn’t be much of a war, would it? I mean, if you supported the war, that would be one thing, but you (apparently) don’t. I just can’t get past this doublethink that says that the war is bad, but the people who have voluntarily gone out of their way to make it happen are somehow untainted by the badness.
And anyway, if the premise of enlisting is that you’re willing to let Mr. Bush, of all people, be the sovereign judge of your morality – well, that’s just fucked up.
So are you saying that I’m a bad person now? I’m somehow the personification of evil because of George Bush? And so are all of my coworkers? I guess we should have just up and quit this morning.
You tell me. Are you okay with George Bush making moral decisions for you? I guess you are, or you wouldn’t be in the service.
And that’s fine, but don’t expect to escape criticism for it. You can’t lay everything at George Bush’s door, not when we have an all-volunteer military.
I forgot which poster said it, but they are right in one thing…you can claim “Conscientious Objector” status, though I’m not sure how often that works. I know you have to prove it in some way. (Wikipedia has a list of the requirements, but I’m not sure how accurate it is) They do ask you if you are a Conscientious Objector when you enlist though. I just wish folks would stop blaming the troops and cast their outrage to the people that make the policies.
Glad to expand your horizons, but how about simply answering the question? Seriously. I think you’re afraid to. The reason is that it will reveal that the VAST number of soldiers in Iraq have committed no actual immoral acts you can point to. You’ll then be stuck overtly broad brushing a few hu8ndred thousand men with the actions of a tiny percent.
B-b-but, wait—the immoral act is the fact that they’re in Iraq. Newsflash: that is a claim, not a fact. I’m trying to get at your support for your claim. You, wisely, don’t want to go there, because the weakness of your position will be revealed. You simply want to 1) take it as a given that being in Iraq is immoral (as opposed to, say, a mistake and a grossly mismanaged one) and 2) any involvement with the aforementioned is *a priori *an immoral inadventure and similarly immoral.
Sorry. You’ll have to do better. Now try anwering the question. Otherwise I’ll have to include that you’re looking for a cheering squad and not an actual discussion.
Mr. Dibble and others, just for the record, I assume you are aware that the Iraqi insurgency isn’t primarily targeting U.S. troops. Their primary targets are Iraqi civilians who belong to the wrong sect or political faction.
I said, “for the purposes of [this] discussion”. While no fan of Bush, or the war (which no one is), I do not equate a bad decision with an immoral one. It was a mistake, I have yet to see that it was necessarily immoral. And before I am willing to extend a badge of immorality to soldiers who simply take orders (which are not usually immoral), I feel the need to, at the very least, have the immorality of going into Iraq be proven to be so. Much of this discussion wants to take as a given: the war in Iraq is immoral. Yet, no one has explained why. MrDibble now goes so far as to insist I take it as a given. Uh, no, I don’t think I will. Especially when he is asking me to then extend that assumed immorality to the soldiers, and then consider it factual. E-fucking-gad! Talk about a immoral action!
Part of the reality is that soldiers cannot, and should not, question every order given them. Doing so, would make the military, any military, ineffective. Now, some people, like the idiot on the San Francsico Board of Supervisors who think we shouldn’t have a miltary might be fine with that, but that’s why he gets classified as an idiot. I don’t know if any posters here would take such an extreme position, but they should realize that that is an inevitable result of asking soldiers to weigh the morality of every order given order befoer they act. Especially when everyone knows they most often will lack all the information to do so. Even to their own satisfaction.
That’s the debate isn’t it? It’s your position that Bush is so immoral that everyone should know and agree with that. Yet, some people do not agree with that premise. As I’ve stated consistently on these boards, I don’t like Bush and look back on the day he was annointed as the nominee as a black one. (But that’s more a matter of the Republican party, which is another discussion.) Bush might have very well made a mistake, but I do not see the immorality of it. When assessing the morality or immorality of an individual, I think one has to look at their actual acts. If they have committed no immoral acts, you cannot failrylabel them as immoral. Claiming that they are immoral because they follow orders and participate in what you may consider an immoral war, again, begs the question and assumes the war is immoral. Now, it is perfectly fine for you to make that assessment for yourself. I see nothing wrong with doing so—for yourself. But if you wish to achieve unanimity on the point you’ll have a very hard time, as people view the morality of the basic misadventure differently.
On the other hand, we achieve much greater unanimity when we look at specific acts. If a soldier rapes a 14 year-old girl, I think everyone would be on the same page. So maybe this discussion is bound to get nowhere. It seems it needs a fondational discussion. Something along the lines of “Assuming going to Iraq was an unmitigated military and political blunder, was it also immoral?”
As I’ve said, I’m willing, for the purposes of this discussion, assume the answer to be “yes”. The question is even if it was, and Bush could be fairly labeled as immoral (having committed an immoral act, which I’ll assume for now), to what degree does that moral culpabaility extend to the troops.
One thing I don’t get is that if Bush is held to be morally culpable it is due in no small part to his should having known better. That he didn’t just make an innocent mistake. Yet, the troops didn’t have that information, allowing them to make a different decision, one that we would not view as immoral. It doesn’t seem fair in the least.
Precisely. Soldiers simply carry out orders that are a result of what happens with the President and congress. They are a tool to be deployed based on policies and decisions that our elected leaders have deemed to be in the best interest of the country.
I would agree with you if I believed that that was the intent. I don’t beleive that to be the case at all. Do you? and without the intent we have plain old bad decisions and incompetence. Neither of those things fairly earn anyone a label of immorality. I’d say that electing such a person, or people, to positions of immense power might come closer to an immoral act. I personally place most of the moral blame on whoever in the RNC was responsible for getting Bush the nomination. Heavens knows what deals were made with what devils.
The problem with the “but it’s voluntary!” argument that so many posters are using in this thread is the question of how far do you extend it? Setting aside whether or not the military action in Iraq is immoral or not, let me ask you a few questions, Sal.
Are the majority of voters in this country immoral because they voluntarily voted for Bush to be reelected after the war was already begun? Should we condemn such a large portion of the nation for putting this “immoral man” in power? What about taxes? Do all citizens bear culpability for this “immoral war”, because they voluntarily pay taxes instead of emigrating out of the country? It’s hard for me to buy the “but it’s voluntary!” argument when it comes from someone who is paying for the damn war out of his or her own bank account. You do have the voluntary ability to move to Canada, Mexico, wherever, but you chose to voluntarily stay in the U.S. and voluntarily fund this “immoral action”.