Main Entry: Moral
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: ethical
- A rule or habit of conduct with regard to right and wrong or a body of such rules and habits. Concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life"
Synonyms: Christian, conscientious, decent, high-minded, honest, honorable, just, kindly, noble, praiseworthy, principled, righteous, scrupulous, truthful, virtuous...
Antonyms: bad, immoral, unethical
Main Entry: Retarded
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: limited
Synonyms: backward, defective, held back, opaque, simple-minded, slow, slow-witted, stupid
Michelle Malkin just mentioned on Fox that I called our troops 'morally retarded".
But her criticism was mild compared to what I received here.
I was not misunderstood nor taken out of context, an attempt at humor did not go astray, no, the truth is my view is genuinely despised. I can understand why. Nobody wants to think of themselves or their loved ones morally deficient.
Nevertheless, I admonish not from anger or to mock, but from compassion. It is undeniable that ultimately every man is responsible for the harm he does, even if only to himself. Most especially to himself, and later, in some dark and tortured night, when the damage is done and unrepairable, is not the time to pose these questions. The time for moral reflection is before the damage is done. But that is not always possible. The second best time for moral reflection is now.
It is still my firm belief that the most important moral decision a person makes in the course of a day is the following: "Who shall I kill today?"
But I now realize there is another, equally important moral decision a person also makes every day, and that is this: "Who shall I let live today?"
These are two questions that I personally agonize over, a debate that rages endlessly between the voices in my head, the satellite transmissions from Major League Baseball and the evil leprechaun that hangs out on my left shoulder.
I even tried writing the question in burning gasoline on an ex-girlfriend's lawn in the hope that she might shed some light on the matter.
Sadly,it only raised new, even more perplexing questions.
How much easier it would be, I have often thought, to just pick someone at random and ask him or her for instruction? A figure of authority, perhaps? Someone looked up to by all. It would answer so many questions and still so many conflicts.
Now, of course, when one joins, or is accepted into the military, of any country, this problem does not arise. Within the law, subject to the rules of engagement, it is strictly prescribed who one must or may not kill.
With the war in Iraq, as with most wars, the decision is made even easier for the seeker of wisdom, since they are often placed in a situation where the question practically answers itself.
But is it wise to surrender to turn over to a chain of command the right to choose your mortal enemy? To let another, no matter how superior, fill in the blank spaces on your killing list, as it were? It's a tempting solution, I admit.
But there is a small problem: your own interests may not exactly and precisely coincide with those of your chain of command.
For example, your chain of command, may have petty ambitions or career goals, or unhealthy cravings for glory or advancement.
They may want to prove a theoretical point about democracy, or re-write a mistaken judgement, show up a predecessor, or simply accumulate political capital in attempt to enact a philosophical agenda regarding taxation or some other irrelevant matter.
Or they may simply enjoy being seen as a "Commander Guy". Their motives may be opaque in many ways. But worse:
They may be be relying upon a flawed cognitive process: these are Unknowns.
But they are Unknowns that we know about. They are called questions.
There also Unknowns we don't know about. These are called the unforeseen, as in 'Nobody could have foreseen'...
Also there are Knowns that we know about. Another word for these are facts.
But what if your chain of command overlooks a single critical element on which all wisdom depends?
An element so important that failure and disgrace are practically guaranteed without accounting for it? What if they are not even aware they have overlooked it?
I speak, of course, of the oft ignored and unstated "Unknown Knowns" - These are things we don't know we know.
Things like biases, assumptions, prejudices, circular reasoning, cultural inculcations, unexamined motives, suppressed urges. Denials. Class values. Untrue facts. Myths. Lies we ourselves come to believe.
Suppose your chain of command were to mention all the permutations of known and unknown, and of the four, leave out only this, the most critical and dangerous?
Such a command might lead one over the cliff decency and honor into an abyss of barbarity and shame.
To surrender the judgement of that most critical question, who should I kill today, would be irresponsible in the extreme, in such a case.
Such recklessness would indicate a fundamental failure of the innate moral facility. That is what I mean by morally retarded.
For this view, I have been called Anti-Military.
My response is this: Who on earth could be Pro-Military! The purpose of a military is to kill. It is at best a necessary evil. Necessary only because someone else has a military that threatens our survival.
Pro-Military? That's like being Pro-Abortion! Or Pro-chemo-therapy!
No! In a world of ignorance, greed, and ambition it is a practical matter that we defend our peace and security against the militaries of others, but the goal is always to have as little military as needed, and no more than absolutely necessary. Currently we spend more than all the rest of the world put together.
A military is an extortion demanded of us by other militaries, a practical acquiesence to the world as it is, but only a sadist, a brute, a glory-monger, a thief or a tyrant can look at a military as a good thing, noble in itself.
Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.
Here is an Unknown Known - something we all know but are not aware we know: A Man Cannot Be a Hero in Service To an Unjust Cause. What kind of society would rob it's soldiers in such a way? A twisted, sickened society.
When men and women are young, they often make mistakes. When we call them mistakes, it hurts, but it may prevent others from making the same mistake.
Meanwhile, I still, under threat of prison, involuntarily, support our troops with 35 percent forcibly taken from every paycheck.
