I wouldn’t think they would be staged… but many will attempt to illegaly gain votes. Even if its staged… the insurgent attacks will be real.
I would make the choice that would cause the least suffering (who’s going to suffer more? Who has children who will suffer, etc.) If the circumstances are truly equal then, sure, I would flip a coin (or whatever). I am not the center of the universe.
I always find these hypothetical ethical dilemmas to be extremely contrived, btw. IRL, it’s not hard to know what’s right.
I will attach one caveat to all of this, though. If it comes to my own family, I will protect them against anything and everything. I am human.
I don’t care to apply morality to them at all. I’ve no need to twist myself into knots and wring my hands trying to empathise with these killers of our troops.
So you are loyal to your family, but not to your country. Interesting.
So basically you have no morality? You just believe that WE are better than THEM?
My family is real. There is no such thing as a “country.”
I have morality. I do my best to be a moral person. A good person. That’s my responsibility.
However, once you are talking about others, it’s no longer my concern. If someone breaks into my house to rob me I don’t care if he is:
A. Just an asshole.
B. A nice guy who’s had some tough breaks in life. He was abused as a child. He’s got an addiction problem. It’s not his fault. He doesn’t really want to hurt anyone.
I don’t care. Either way, him robbing me and endangering my family is unacceptable and I won’t tolerate it.
:eek:
And if you break into someone else’s house do they have the right not to tolerate it?
Wheeling out a straw man about burglary seems a bit beside the point in an argument essentially focussed on global politics.
The morality Debaser advocates doesn’t look much different to me from the “morality” of a chimpanzee. An animal as socially and politically sophisticated as a human being should be able to do better.
Diogenes has done a good job of illustrating that certain ostensibly moral acts are based on human constructs which are largely illusory. The constructs can be changed, and periodically are. Moral absolutes tend likewise to be changeable, thereby, of course, making them not absolute at all.
Debaser, according to what you’ve said in this thread, you are a moral relativist. If you believe that the identity of the person performing the action changes or can change the morality of the action, you are a moral relativist.
Moral relativism allows for a judgment of the actor. Moral absolutism only allows for a judgment of the action.
Thus, these are potential statements of moral relativism:
“Invading another country might be an evil or might be a good. It depends.”
“The United States may invade another country because our values are good and noble.”
“If someone comes into my country illegally, it’s okay for me to kill them, but if I go into their country illegally, it is not okay for them to kill me.”
And these are potential statements of moral absolutism:
“Invading another country is wrong.”
“The United States may not invade another country because invading another country is wrong.”
“If someone comes into my country illegally, it’s okay for me to kill them. If I go into their country illegally, it is okay for them to kill me.”
“If someone comes into my country illegally, it’s not okay for me to kill them. If I go into their country illegally, it is not okay for them to kill me.”
When you build in exceptions to the rules, you are being a relativist.
Of course.
(BTW, breaking into someone’s home <> the invasion of Iraq.)
I’ve been trying to stick to the burglary example precisely because this conversation should not focus on global politics. It’s a debate about a type of thinking. It’s a disservice to only consider everything as it relates to Iraq.
The US invading Iraq is morally identical to Iraq invading the US.
Incorrect. First, I have said no such thing. Second, even if I did, that does not make me a moral relativist.
All of which has nothing to do with a criminal breaking into my house.
Finish that sentence, please. That does not make you a moral relativist because …
What you say after “because” will reveal whether you have any idea what you’re talking about.
You’re the one who brought up Iraq in the first place as an (erroneous) example of my alleged relativism. Now that your example has been refuted you want to change the subject?
If you really just want to stick to the very narrow example of home invasion, then sure, it’s immoral to break into people’s homes and the residents have a right to fight back. Who has said anything to the contrary?
Why would you lie about something that is so easy to prove incorrect. The OP brought up Iraq. Post #2 talked about Iraq. Posts #3 and #4 were by you and were regarding Iraq.