[Loy]

Asurai-The problem I'm having with your posts is this idea that "morality" is something that is irrevocable, immutable, and unchnging. The thing you don't seem to get is that "morality" is as fluid as those who hold them.

Let me give you an example. I mentioned that soldiers have been forgiven of acts that we, as a culture, have deemed immoral. You said something to the effect that government does not have the power to "forgive" (make something evil into something good). OK, let's go with that.

Now, how do you justify soldiers killing....well, anybody really. See, "morality" (or, to be specific, "western morality") Says killing another person is wrong unless they specifically attack you (as an individual, not as an aspect of a larger entity, i.e. they're shooting at mike because he's Mike, not because he's Mike the American who happens to be with a whole shitload of other Americans), yet the main job of a soldier (once you strip away all the "defending the country" BS doublespeak used to cover up this little fact) is to kill whoever they're told to kill no matter what.

Now, one can easilly say "what if they're at war?", to which the easy retort would be "are you opening fire because they are attacking you or because you were told to?". Throw in a few civilians who have been caught in the crossfire and voila! A whole slew of moral ambiguities to ponder over.

Now, when this happens in this country (two groups are shooting at each other at random and accidentally kill a few bystanders), the charge is usually manslaughter, but can be bumped up to murder depending upon other factors in the situation. The person could be brought up on charges and be toseed into prison. However, if this same situation happens in "war", because the government has declared "war" (or, if congress hasn't actually bothered with the "declaring war" proccess, then it's a "security action"), then the very same actions are not seen as "criminal acts", but "heroic acts".

Now how is it that the same actions performed under the same set of situations be seen as morally unequal? Simple-morality is neither irrevocable, immutable, or unchanging.

If my example above is too confusing, let me throw out another, simpler, example-say a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. I get brought up on charges, and am in front of a jury. There's a REALLY good chance I'd be let go.

Now, say I lived in ancient Greece, and a pedophile rapes my son, and, in a rage, I throttle the living shit out of him until his brains are oozing out of his ears and nostrils. Say I'm brought up on charges, and am brought in front of jury. What happens? I would probably be executed.

Now, same actions, same set of situations. What's different? Oh yeah, in Ancient Greece, pedarasty was an idealised form of love, whereas in Modern America, pederasty is looked down upon. Again, the morality fluctuates dependant upon extenuating circumastances.

I hope I'm not confusing anybody.