Serving in an unjust war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
You believe. But you do not have access to classified information, nor do you have the training and experience to reliably evaluate that information. That’s why the Church places the responsibility on the government.
Click to expand...
Like any other human being, I must form my judgement based on the information available to me. I agree that it would be helpful to have more information made available to the general public to help inform us in when forming our judgments. Perhaps we should make a FOIA request?
Note also, the Church calls upon government to make provision for conscientious objectors – but says those persons must serve in some capacity.
Click to expand...
Any particular reason you brought this up? We do not have a draft in place, and I already gave my position on the obligations of those who are in the military above.
And yet you take positions that aid our enemies.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t even merit a response. If opposing your government’s actions amounts to treason, let’s just install the president as dicatator-for-life and be done with it. Why let the uninformed plebes have even a token say - they might accidentally embolden those notoriously apathetic terrorists :rolleyes:
Just what law are you working to revoke? The power of the Congress to declare war? The designation of President as Commander-in-Chief?

Your error is in equating “unjust law” with an on-going war.
Click to expand...
The point I was making was regarding action by the government. Passing a law is a government action. Prosecuting a war is a government action. As citizens we have a duty to evaluate, judge, and respond to actions the government takes in our name, be those legislative or executive actions.
And if you are wrong in your judgement (as you likely are, due to your lack of information and lack of training and experience to reliably evaluate that information) will you accept on your head the blood-guilt of those soldiers who die as a result?
Click to expand...
Is that what this is all about - you wish to avoid guilt? If the war was wrong, we have the blood guilt of those who died on both sides on our heads. If the war was right and we did not go, we likewise would bear guilt. There is no way to avoid culpability. Such is the weight of democracy.
 
Philip P:
Like any other human being, I must form my judgement based on the information available to me. I agree that it would be helpful to have more information made available to the general public to help inform us in when forming our judgments. Perhaps we should make a FOIA request?
Click to expand...
You have stepped into what in decision-making science is called “The Mother of All Foul-Ups.” That involves two mistakes. The first is choosing inappropriate decision-making criteria, and the second is applying it to only one course of action.

This usually happens when one wants the decision to turn out a certain way. In this case, you want to find the government “guilty.”

You cannot expect the government to respond to a FOIA requist for Top Secret information! And if you had it, would that suddenly give you the training and experience to properly interpret it?
Philip P:
Any particular reason you brought this up? We do not have a draft in place, and I already gave my position on the obligations of those who are in the military above.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out before, those who adopt situational ethics tend to find that they are morally impelled to do what is in their own self-interest or their own agenda.

Look at those who have volunteered. Who are sacrificing and facing risks. These are the men with the moral high-ground. Their morality drives them to give of themselves – and many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Philip P:
That doesn’t even merit a response. If opposing your government’s actions amounts to treason, let’s just install the president as dicatator-for-life and be done with it. Why let the uninformed plebes have even a token say - they might accidentally embolden those notoriously apathetic terrorists
Click to expand...
In other words you reject the idea that perhaps you might be wrong? You accept no responsibility for your actions?
Philip P:
The point I was making was regarding action by the government. Passing a law is a government action. Prosecuting a war is a government action. As citizens we have a duty to evaluate, judge, and respond to actions the government takes in our name, be those legislative or executive actions.
Click to expand...
A war is not a law. Men’s lives are at risk. National security is at risk. And those who do not serve could at least refrain from giving the enemy leave to believe that if they hang in there and kill enough Americans, they can win.
Philip P:
Is that what this is all about - you wish to avoid guilt?
Click to expand...
Funny, I was about to say that to you. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to make pronouncements and decisions – knowing you have neither the information nor the expertise to do so – and avoid all blame for the outcome.
Philip P:
If the war was wrong, we have the blood guilt of those who died on both sides on our heads. If the war was right and we did not go, we likewise would bear guilt. There is no way to avoid culpability. Such is the weight of democracy.
Click to expand...
Now let that guide you – remembering that you have neither the information nor the expertise to make the judgement (and that the Church for those reasons has assigned that to others than yourself.)
 
vern humphrey:
Look at those who have volunteered. Who are sacrificing and facing risks. These are the men with the moral high-ground. Their morality drives them to give of themselves – and many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Click to expand...
In other words you reject the idea that perhaps you might be wrong? You accept no responsibility for your actions?

Actually I said precisely the opposite, which you would know if you had read my post you quoted (in case you missed it, I’ve even bolded the most relevant phrase for you):
Originally Posted by Philip P
If the war was wrong, we have the blood guilt of those who died on both sides on our heads. If the war was right and we did not go, we likewise would bear guilt. There is no way to avoid culpability. Such is the weight of democracy.
Click to expand...
(and in case this is still to subtle for you, it is you and I and every citizen who I am saying cannot avoid culpability)

As far as refusing to acknowledge that I could be wrong, again if you had been paying attention you would note that my position is entirely the opposite. It is based on the idea that all human judgements are by their nature limited and fallible. Mine are. So are yours. So are the presidents. Your position, I admit, is far easier – simply trust the president and let him carry the weight of responsibility. While shirking our moral responsibility may help us sleep at night, however, it is not a position I can subscribe to.
 
Philip P:
We honor those who put their lives on the line by working to ensure we have a government worthy of their sacrifice, not by giving the government a blank check. If my representatives are sending men and women into harm’s way, you better believe I’m going to be asking tough questions and holding them to a high moral standard.
Click to expand...
You honor a man by encouraging the enemy to kill him?
Philip P:
Actually I said precisely the opposite, which you would know if you had read my post you quoted (in case you missed it, I’ve even bolded the most relevant phrase for you):
Click to expand...
Actually, you haven’t – you’ve dismissed your responsibility in encouraging the enemy.
Philip P:
(and in case this is still to subtle for you, it is you and I and every citizen who I am saying cannot avoid culpability)

As far as refusing to acknowledge that I could be wrong, again if you had been paying attention you would note that my position is entirely the opposite. It is based on the idea that all human judgements are by their nature limited and fallible. Mine are. So are yours. So are the presidents. Your position, I admit, is far easier – simply trust the president and let him carry the weight of responsibility. While shirking our moral responsibility may help us sleep at night, however, it is not a position I can subscribe to.
Click to expand...
So, even knowing that you cannot have all the information – and if you had it, you do not have the training and expertise to evaluate it – you ignore the Catechism and take on yourself the authority to decide. And you do this knowing that if you are wrong (as with your handicaps you almost certainly are) you encourage the enemy to kill your fellow Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top