03-15-2005, 11:40 AM | #41 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Please understand that I am not arguing for an immediate violent conclusion to every conflict; that is a straw man that is often attempted in such discussions. I am all for a logical and peaceful conclusion to all conflics, but to profess that such solutions are the only moral way of doing things is not only naive but deeply insulting to those taking care of the failures you choose to ignore. Almost every soldier would prefer peace but they recognize that there are some people who cannot be persuaded or reasoned with; people who may not even allow an alternate viewpoint to be expressed. In the real world this failure is going to be encountered eventually and my point is how that should be resolved. |
||
03-15-2005, 12:30 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
Guest
|
Quote:
The Second-World-War was not fought because of the Nazi Regime's unpleasant internal policies. It began when Germany invaded Poland, and made steps towards a military domination of Europe. None of the countries involved in WWII did so because of their distaste of the Nazi ideology, they did so for political and economic reasons - and in order to protect their own interests. Further examples of this include Rwanda where no military action took place to stop the open genocide, and little happened in the Baltic states untill the conflict began to destabalise other parts of Europe. While it is a noble ideal to say that people are sent into combat in order to protect the high moral ground, it has been shown that more often than not, it is issues of money and national security that spurs governments into sending their armies into action. Perhaps here we swap from our chairs of naievite (however it is spelt) and cynicism, but I find it upsetting to think that brave soldiers are being asked to die without knowing what it is they are really dying for. Last edited by zen_tom; 03-15-2005 at 12:41 PM.. |
|
03-15-2005, 01:19 PM | #44 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-15-2005, 02:12 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Mad Philosopher
Location: Washington, DC
|
Quote:
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
03-15-2005, 11:28 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
Luther has a lot to say about seeing God in the face of the other. he's not using post modern language like other, but it's strikingly precsient. some of the smartest stuff luther says...ironically for the example, he also makes tragic contributions to the project of anti-semitism.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
03-16-2005, 09:04 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
Guest
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by zen_tom; 03-16-2005 at 09:13 AM.. |
|
03-16-2005, 12:34 PM | #48 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
I think there's an underlying point to this entire discussion that's been danced around but never really said. I don't know if I've really got my finger on it but try this out:
zen_tom's comments about the use of morality & personal beliefs to generate a fighting force got me thinking......what we really seem to be discussing here is the idea of faith/belief being used as a weapon. Whether it's used as an excuse to defend oneself in battle, or as a reason for starting one, the point is the same....there's always this element of personal beliefs tied to the act of war. Phage's comment that people should believe something strongly enough to go to battle is sort of a double-edged weapon: yes people should be able to believe something that strongly, but no people should not be short-sighted enough so that they start conflict at the drop of a hat. When it comes to engaging in conflict that's not just spur of the moment (ie. I've just been jumped in an alley) everyone has to examine their own personal ideas about what's right and find out how strongly they accept the cause that's presented before them.
__________________
This space not for rent. |
Tags |
organized, religion |
|
|