[Asurai]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand what you mean quite clearly; I simply rebel against that notion down to the very bottom of my soul.

Now, how do you justify soldiers killing....well, anybody really.

One: soldiers killing people who want to kill us, is entirely fine, since a soldier's job (despite your calling it BS) is to protect his country. Yes, this is done by killing, but that's simple an effect: the primary purpose is to defend.

Two: if soldiers killed Osama bin Laden, I would call that the execution of a murderer, i.e. justice.

Three: soldiers, too, are entitled to defend themselves if fired upon.

So, I can justify it by appeals to national defense, self defense, and justice. I'm sure that I could think of others, if those don't please you.

See, "morality" (or, to be specific, "western morality") Says killing another person is wrong unless they specifically attack you

No, it doesn't. "Western morality" says that murdering an innocent person undeserving of death is wrong. If one is attacked, as one mentioned, then one can defend himself, but it's also perfectly within the bounds of Western morality to execute a murderer.

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.

Incorrect. If given an illegal order, a soldier is mandated to refuse to carry it out. If, say, a marine is ordered to fire on unarmed civilians, he is obligated to ignore that order -- and he would be prosecuted in a court of law if he carried it out.

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.

Quite simple. See the above about illegal orders. Now, if enemies fire at a group of soldiers from within a group of civilians, then the civilians had damned well better get lost (only an idiot would stand still inside a group of men firing at people in a tank). If they're being used as human shields, then try to not hit them, but any deaths that result are to be blamed entirely upon those who used them as shields in the first place.

Moral ambiguity solved.

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."

You're not actually arguing; you're simply restating your position that something called "criminal" by society is criminal and something called "heroic" by society is heroic. (Yes, I realize that that's slightly exaggerated.)

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.

You did not demonstrate that they are morally unequal; you merely stated that they are perceived as being morally unequal. But the situations are not identical: soldiers' killing enemies/terrorists is not the same as two rival gangs' shooting at each other.

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.

Correct. Consider it justice.

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.

Correct. But, again, you're not actually saying anything about morality itself; you're simply pointing out that different people at different times perceive morality differently, which is obvious.

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.

No, the legality fluctuates according to circumstances; whether the thing was itself evil or not, by an objective standard, remains the same.

Allow me an example: let's say that, in 2005 America, a woman knocks on my door, begging to be hidden from someone trying to murder her. Now, let's say that in 1939 Nazi Germany, a Jew knocks on my door, begging to be hidden from someone trying to murder him.

In both situations, the morally obligatory thing to do would be to try to save their lives. In the first, I would be considered somewhat of a hero by the media/society; in the second, I would be denounced as a conspirator and likely condemned to death by the media/society.

Meanwhile, you would be arguing that the moral thing to do would be to send the Jew to his death, because the people of that place and of that time would have considered that the moral thing to do.

I'm saying that the right, good thing, in that case, would be to have hidden the person, society's opinion be damned.