Thanks for this post, it made me want to clarify my thoughts a little.
Let me briefly pursue a slight tangent:
Often my grandmother tells me stories about her experiences during WWII (she has nothing else to talk about apparently), and occasionally we end up discussing war and the morality of soldiering in fairly unenlightened terms. Her view is that conscientious objectors were no better than cowards and deserving of prison time, whereas those who went to war (whether or not they excelled while there) should be recognised as heroes.
There's really too much to comment on here, but morally, the conversation could go on for days. Deciding what is "morally right" can't happen until a person's morals are mapped out to begin with. I have come to the conclusion that my own basic morals are too divergent from the norm to really be of much use to the average person, but they do work for me.
Your point about heroes and enemies is well taken though, there really aren't any absolutes.
I have a problem with this reasoning because it leaves no-one morally neutral - you're either saint or sinner. Thus it becomes one's duty to be a hero, kind of devaluing the concept of heroism if you ask me.
Hmm, this made me think. I don't know if I've considered the concept of "moral neutrality" before. Do you think this is what most people hope to achieve? If it is, then I understand better why I don't fit in at all. I don't like the saint/sinner model because I think that there are varying degrees of each in all of us, at different times. We are all some of each, in our own ways. To ME (whether this be true or not), it seems like "moral neutrality" is simply a desire to absolve oneself of responsibility. I don't see it as possible most of the time. It's not that I'm saying there's always a clear right and wrong- far from it. But I do think there's usually a choice that's better- more right than wrong.
Personally I take a more morally minimalistic standpoint: I have never been to war, and truthfully I don't know if I would have the guts to. So I'm not willing to condemn someone who is afraid of death and/or dismemberment as a coward, and I think this is a reasonably enlightened and modern standard. Consequently those who DID go to war would be feted, while those who did not would only suffer in relative terms.
I could never risk my life for someone else's cause. A politician is NOT a god, nor should his word be taken as having come from the mouth of God. Of course, I don't believe in gods, but even if I did, a politician in this country, in this time, is not a figure of respect to me, so no- I would never die for one.
I'm also not daft enough to believe that bush gives a fuck about my country- not the way I do. He doesn't care about the principles on which it was founded, he doesn't understand the dream of freedom and enterprise, freedom from persecution that draws people from all over the world to want a bit of what we've got here- HE didn't create it and he's been a fucking lousy steward. No, I wouldn't die for him, nor do I heap tons of respect on those who have. I respect that they've served
their conscience, but not mine. There is a huge difference. This is a volunteer army, they've done what they've chosen to do.
I wonder if I could extend this logic to the case of a right-minded individual living in Germany in November 1938. I can't tell you now that I would be brave enough to stand up against a detatchment of brownshirts with clubs and pistols, so I think it would be rather rich to denigrate someone else for the same lack of courage. We should of course celebrate the bravery of MLK Jr, Ghandi et al., but to equate silence with complicity is neither logically nor morally correct.
Okay, I see what you're getting at, and I can agree up to a point. Here's where I draw the line- what if your SAFETY is not being threatened, just your embarassment? Yes, I can easily understand a German being too weak on his own to stand up to the Nazis, but not a white American allowing others to call blacks "nigger" in front of them without telling them to shut the fuck up.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to explore my own feelings more explicitly. We may still disagree on this, and that's fine. To me, silence still equals acceptantce. I can understand it if you or your family is being threatened, but since that's rarely the case anymore, it's usually just out of unwillingness to make yourself uncomfortable, even to do the right thing. Being too lazy to be decent is repulsive to me. I guess I don't believe in moral neutrality.
Of course by my logic the Levite was quite justified in leaving the robbed man to die by the road, so you have to apply a bit of common sense. We can't all be Samaritans, though, can we?
Haha, the eternal question, what really IS right? The Golden Rule is a load of fresh crap, because there are two parts to the equation, and it only addresses one part. It says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Of course, this is NOT Biblical, but people quote it as if it is!
Also, it does NOT address what the other person wants! What horseshit!
No, the only intellectually honest thing you can say is "Do unto others exactly as you wish to do unto them". Help them if you want, ignore them if you want, hurt them when they're weak, if you want. See, our choices mainly affect US. While we see ourselves as some incredible force in the lives of others, what we're really doing is defining
ourselves. We are only a sum of our actions, not our words or beliefs.
I agree with you, apply a bit of common sense, in all things. Look at the whole picture, not just one fragment. We're not all Samaritans for a reason- what is it? We each have different tasks to accomplish while we're here.