|
Thank you for the free lesson in logic Drake! Very enlightening to see the fallacy of such verbal loops in improper logic. Fascinating.
As to Drac's question: personally, I see no right or wrong; the perspective should be at the macro-social level (I know I have made references to sophomorism in earlier posts, but bear with me a moment):
In war, two large social organisms touch and at the boundaries one will try to devour the other. Think of two large amoebas covering the earth. Where the edges touch, conflict arises and a battle for territorial domination and defense of territory will ensue. It matters not who is selected to fight the battle at the individual level, individuals will be found that comprise the organism to compose the "skin" or edge of the organism. War is not a matter for individuals; as long as society exists, there will be high level decisions and behaviors chosen that are above the individuals ability to control (at least directly). A different kind of morality must evolve to model the social organism's behavior. Currently, social organisms are very primitive. When preservation of constituent individuals finally happens, social organisms will have sufficiently evolved to adhere to concepts of "what is right or wrong".
In my humble opinion anyway.
|