There is no right and wrong

by campaign of hate 34 Replies latest jw friends

Clambake

When I was 18 ( just before the internet ) I watched a video called “ the many faces of death “ and there was a medical video of a 24 week abortion. Till this day it is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.

Now was it disturbing because I grew up in a church or because I am a human with a conscience. How many people would be protesting in the street if they saw the video I saw.

I like to think people are hardwired to not do things like torture animals or have sex with children or let your children die over blood transfusions but man sometimes I wonder.

When you learn about the fall of the Roman empire, or the evils of Communism , I still believe religion has a role as a moral compass.
Jonathan Drake

War and conflicts are a means to a political end, nothing more.
This is an outrageous statement to blanket all war with.
War is absolutely not a means to a political end in all instances. To state this in such a way is borderline insulting to society. I would absolutely agree that there have been battles and perhaps wars that have been fought for political reasons but by no means have all wars been for this purpose.
I use as just one example the civil war of the United States. This was fought over slavery and the entire point of the war was morality. This was not politically motivated all, as the ownership of slaves and the spread of the practice was a boon for white owners. Fighting it's spread and eventually abolishing it only resulted in the loss of money. This was not fought over political reasons, because a HUGE portion of the United States obviously opposed the repression of slavery. it was an issue of morality. It was about right and wrong.
Further, It may be impossible for religion to go down without something akin to a civil war in this country. Should it come to that it would be an issue of morality. Christianity is why stem cell research is banned, Christianity is the reason why a 100% effective HPV vaccine is banned, Christianity is so deep in our government here that it has its hands on everything. Francis Collins I believe (if I remember right is or was the head of the WHO) has even taken a side opposing any future vaccine against aids based on religious beliefs.
To say that war is strictly political is misguided and ignorant. It is a fact that there are societies on our planet that live in circumstances brought on by a dark ages worldview of their leaders or religious representatives and these people are willing to kill themselves to drag everyone else down to that same level.
If you think it merely a political motivation that drives people to oppose, fight, and die fighting this darkness then I suggest you go live in it for a while and gain a little culture.
war may SOMETIMES be politically motivated, but war ALL OF THE TIME has something to do with morality - whether on the positive or negative side of the spectrum. It is impossible to spread good morality without war against those who would die for the bad. Therefore, war against the bad morality of the world is not only moral, but completely founded on morality - because it's literally a battle between good and evil. No politics involved.
Vidiot

In the case of armed conflicts, "right" and "wrong", "ethical" and "unethical", "moral" and "immoral", etc. are often labels placed on the actions after the fact, and usually by the victors.
Not always, though, and it doesn't always stick, either.
Jonathan Drake

Vidiot4 minutes ago
In the case of armed conflicts, "right" and "wrong", "ethical" and "unethical", "moral" and "immoral", etc. are often labels placed on the actions after the fact, and usually by the victors.
I highly suggest you watch the video posted on the first page. At one point Sam Harris related an experience in which he asked a person if they thought it was right to throw battery acid in the face of a little girl. The person responded that it depended on why they did it. So he said, "say there's a scripture that says every third child must walk in darkness and they believe this." And the response was, "then you cannot say they are wrong."
Yes, you can say they are wrong. And you can say, BEFOREHAND, and regardless of who the victor is, that fighting and killing this doctrine and any who would die for it is both moral and ethical.
the days of history being written by the victors are long over. What you say in this quote, vidiot is no longer correct in today's society. It's an idea from an ignorant age where reason and truth were non existent and relative perspectively.
The only way the world will again be as you describe is if reason loses and religion regains control.
millie210

Jonathan,
You are obviously light years ahead of me as a thinker.
For your above statement " War is absolutely not a means to a political end in all instances" you gave an example of the Civil War in the U.S.
that was a really good example I think.
Most people are going to think slavery is bad and you picked something that is hard to argue against.
Would be harder to argue an unpopular war, or one whose motives are more ambiguous?
Maybe HMTMs take on war is correct in terms of "most" wars?
What about clambakes post (abortion)?
What is the moral stand there?
Hold Me-Thrill Me

Jonathan Drake: War is absolutely not a means to a political end in all instances.
Governments go to war or engage in conflict in order to serve or preserve their nation, their political ends, their political interests. At times that political end may be to preserve the nation itself. At other times to help their allies whose continued existence most definitely benefits a nation and therefore their political ends, political referring to their government. The main and first objective of any government is to maintain its existence. You gave the Civil War as an example that you believe proves my statement wrong.

Jonathan Drake: This was fought over slavery and the entire point of the war was morality.
The point of the war was the preservation of the Union. The southern states rebelled against the Union. The north would not have it. Yes, slavery sparked the southern states to rebel but the north did not send their young men to die simply to free the slaves. There was another more important issue at hand: the Union of States, the United States of America.
Read carefully Lincoln's letter below:

EXECUTIVE MANSiON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.
_____________________
Lincoln's letter is the epitome of what national leaders must do. They must first preserve the nation, and its political interests, and do what is necessary to accomplish those ends. If that means war then it is war.
In Lincoln's time that political end was the preservation of the Union. He, imo, accomplished a worth while political end. He preserved the Union and the nation.
Frank
campaign of hate

Thanks for the replys, its nice to get a bit perspective on the subject.
The point hold me thrill me made about war being political and not moral is absolutely bizarre.
War goes deep into the human psyche, making people feel they should have ownership of something that isn't theirs, in a lot of cases oil or resources of the country they are invading. It's also used to gain the compliance of individuals of that certain nation, something that no one should have exclusive ownership of.
9-11 was used merely as an example, don't want to sidetrack into that.
Another example is the nuclear bombs that were dropped on japan. Some still believe that it was the right thing to do. Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands who were affected and are still being affected. But pearl harbor was defiantly wrong, but it didn't kill nearly as many people....It just depends on what side you are on whether it is right or wrong.
I understand collateral damage and terrorism and the perceived differences, i just think those who are undertaking collateral damage are more attuned to the general populations thinking. If UK or US went around celebrating destroying parts of another country there would be protests. That doesn't mean for a moment that they are not happy and proud of what they are doing. Lets say the western army are more media savvy than terrorists. In my eyes, both are acts of terrorism (9-11 and the resulting retaliation, or any other example that may arise)
Yes, it can be said i am resetting my thinking in terms of finding morality and my own moral compass away from religion. But, i still think by applying the "fruitages of the spirit" perhaps with the exception of faith, one can be a "good citizen". "Good" being, not hurting anyone else through word and deed, not doing anything that is detrimental to the environment, helping others that are in need. etc etc.
I have been taught my entire life that i cannot achieve these things without having religion and God in my life. Not just any religion, but being part of the JWs. This is a complete lie, as everyone has the ability in their hearts to do kind deeds. If anything, i have learned i should do more for my fellow man ever since i woke up to the Fraud that is the WTBTS.
campaign of hate

Hold me thrill me - So killing people just to satisfy your nations political ideals is of utmost importance, even over the life of others? I didn't realize the constitution was a living breathing entity.
Has it ever crossed your mind that Abraham Lincoln wanted to preserve the political status quo because he was a selfish man and didn't want to yield to the idea of alternative governance?
If politicians were more diplomatic in their approach and were willing to compromise more with the offending nations, being less selfish so to speak, there would be a lot less death.
Hold Me-Thrill Me

Campaign of hate,
War is at times necessary at other times a selfish pursuit. This is the way it is, the way it has always been, This is life.
Lincoln preserved the Union. This was beneficial to southerners and northerners and slaves. He fought a necessary war.
Campaign of hate: If politicians were more diplomatic in their approach and were willing to compromise more with the offending nations, being less selfish so to speak, there would be a lot less death.
What you describe is outside of human reality.
Frank
Jonathan Drake

Jonathan,
You are obviously light years ahead of me as a thinker.
For your above statement " War is absolutely not a means to a political end in all instances" you gave an example of the Civil War in the U.S.
that was a really good example I think.
Most people are going to think slavery is bad and you picked something that is hard to argue against.
Would be harder to argue an unpopular war, or one whose motives are more ambiguous?
Maybe HMTMs take on war is correct in terms of "most" wars?
What about clambakes post (abortion)?
What is the moral stand there?
I will address the last three questions here, and in doing so I think address the first.
First, no I do not agree with the notion of most wars being politically motivated. If there are political motivators they are not the first concern in most cases. The concern of World War II as another example was moral in nature, not politcal. Whole nations spent their money and other assets fighting Nazism, and did so expecting to gain nothing but the end of the oppression of Hitler and his regime.
War is not just a thing, it's alive. It is the faces of all the men and women fighting. When you speak of war, you speak of altruism because your talking about men and women willing to give their all in exchange for NOTHING (because they must accept the possibility of their death) in order to bring about a change for the better. How is this not a moral concern at its core? There is NO soldier who goes to war over a political concern, and few leaders who ever have. It has always been a moral concern, whether misguided morals (often founded in religion) or good ones (end the holocaust, free the slaves, end the tyranny of France, end the oppressive taxes of Britain on the colonies - this latter an endeavor largely engaged in by men who were well off and gained nothing by leading a rebellion).
The only instances that can be listed that are examples of wrongfully motivated war are going to have ties to religion somewhere. Again as an example, the confederates of the civil war could easily use the bible to defend their rights to slave owner ship and they did do this as a matter of fact if I remember correctly. Also as an example, the anti semitism that lead to the holocaust and Hitlers rise to power was directly spread through all of Europe and fed into by the Cathlic church for a very long time. They believed in the Blood Libel, a doctrine that taught people that Jews were after the blood of Christians, especially their first born, in order to ease the plagues brought on them for their murder of the Messiah. It was taught that they used Christian blood as a salve and that both their men AND women menstruated. Such hatred brewed by the church is a direct cause of the holocuast and the support Hitler had. And this is only two examples out of countless more demonstrating why it can be factually shown that religion is by no means a guide to morality or ethics.
Second, in the case of abortion. It's opposition is almost entirely religious in nature. The Catholic Church preaches that it is sinful to use contraception and that abortion is wrong - this results in the suffering of millions of children who their parents couldn't possibly afford to have. Why should these children be brought into the world to suffer horribly? To starve and get sick eating bad food and learn nothing but misery?
Religion says that the unborn child is a conscious person and abortion is murder. Harris in that video uses a quote that states, "in order for something to be conscious there must be something that it is like to be it." Unborn children who do not have a brain or a heart are not conscious. How can it be said that there is anything that it is like to be something lacking a brain? Or something that has been given no sense of self (never been hungry, thirsty, pointed at, called by name, never experienced any sort of thing to make it realize itself)? If there is nothing that it is like to be a thing, and that can be proven, then you aren't killing it you are preventing it from ever being alive. That choice, is nobodies business but the parents and they should have honest and true information upon which to base such choices - not absurd unprovable ones coming from a religion that can (and I've done it here) be shown to be the worst source of any morality at all.
these I believe are the moral situations of both questions.
Also, I wouldn't say anyone is ahead of anyone in terms of thinking. Because this isn't me thinking, it's me presenting evidence. It's not a representation of me in any way. Anybody can do it.

There is no right and wrong

Share this