zen_tom

Phage, at no point did I say I felt it was immoral - as it happens, I don't believe that there is such a thing as an absolute set of moral values (in fact there is a thread on this very subject) and with that standpoint, it is very difficult to state what might be moral or immoral at any given time without creating inconsistancies. However, what I believe we can do, is operate in a way that benefits the entire system, and ourselves as individuals. To operate in this manner isn't morally right or wrong, but it does reap the maximum benefits for everyone. I am quite happy to accept that there will be those people who are willing to take a gun and defend a border from being crossed. I don't want to do that job myself, and I certainly wont demean or disrespect that person doing that undoubtedly valuable job. However, I will question the motives that his political leaders might use to justify his walking over that border and imposing force on someone else. He as an individual will be protecting himself and the lives of his unit - hoping to keep himself and his friends out of harm. If that means killing others then so be it if the situation demands. However, that is not a situation he is responsible for. He and his squad are there because somebody decided they be there. They have been put in a position of danger that they must respond to on a survival level.

Responding to threats to ones own survival is a natural thing and is no more immoral that feeling hungry or having desirous feelings towards the opposite sex.

What I do object to is when the soldiers are told that they are defending their families, that they are upholding the law, that they are on the side of the righteous, when the decisions that are made that put them into such difficult situations have been made with very little thought given to the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the action.

However, millitaries across the world have been told that theirs is on the side of God (whether it's the Armies of Napoleon, or Hitler, or Caesar or whoever) now obviously both sides can't be right can they? Does the right side win every time? No, it's the side with the bigger guns.

So don't misunderstand, I'm not saying it's immoral to go to war, but what I am saying is that it definately isn't moral either. And that where it is made out to be, that morality is often covering up a more mundane, economic set of motivations.

Once you've established that there's no way to defend the morality or immorality of warfare, you need to look instead at what course of action would be best in the long term. When you do this, it turns out that a pacifist approach provides the greatest rewards for all. Yes, perhaps put guards on your border to deter opportunists, yes have some form of deterrant, but aggressive action is very rarely justified.