Absolutely not, imo. One can feel awful at the concept, but not be able to identify with people on an individual basis. I think we'd all be in a daze of horror at all the suffering that goes on all over the world.
OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:So, tell me OSD, would you consider a mandatory year of service to the country
(whether military, peace corps or some other public service) for high school graduates as "slavery"?
Yes.
Note that I don 't object to Congress having the power
to raise an army, in defense of the nation.
David
Well, a military draft - or, "raising an Army" as you put it is for the express purpose of gathering manpower to defend the nation, yes. That is mandatory service, and not slavery - in your opinion. But doesn't the idea of mandatory service for young people have any merit because of the potential benefits for the country (and for the youth)?
I suppose it is very rare that a person sets out to be evil. And I suppose that the good and evil in acts are value judgements we make rather than natural facts. Nevertheless, I do value some actions as good and others as evil--knowing that they are MY value assessments. AND I also try to encourage the "good" acts and discourage the "evil" ones both in myself and in others.
I think that the Idea of "Good" and "Evil" are stemmed from a sort of neutral state, that I belive is default in our minds when we are born. Making judgment on what's bad or good and things of that nature corresponds directly, in the beginning, with basic necessities of life: Children act based on what they need to survive or what feels good or bad (Our bodies are made so that things that are harmful to our being make us feel bad, the majority of the time, so to ensure we make habits of doing what's most helpful to our means to survive.) It isn't until we really encounter society and morals when we begin to separate what is right and wrong just from the survival of ourselves. (For instance, as a society, we try to instill a strong sense of moral foundation that says: What's right is what's best for the majority of people and not based on your own benefit. The greatest good for the greatest number of people.)
Either way, our judgement has ultimately been changed from: do what best suits you to what best suits your society, and, go figure, we learn this basic rule from our society. So, I don't believe people can be born "Good" or "Evil", just with the original desire to do what's best for Themselves, up until society changes us.
Abouhamdan wrote: (For instance, as a society, we try to instill a strong sense of moral foundation that says: What's right is what's best for the majority of people and not based on your own benefit. The greatest good for the greatest number of people.)
Not sure I quite agree with that. It could be used to justify many things that I would consider evil. There are situations where the greatest good for the greatest number of people would require committing heinous acts on a small minority.
Good point, Eori. I guess that's why I am not enthused by Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian ethic, too superficial and formulaic.
OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply if they do it by a draft?
I used "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" as an example of a sort of moral that society instills in the people in it, I don't entirely agree with the concept (There are obviously acceptions and extenuating circumstances), but I'm just giving an example.
snood wrote:OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?
Not in MY opinion.
Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David
( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )
OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?
Not in MY opinion.
Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David
( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )
Kind of hard to understand you on this. Do you believe that raising an army by way of a draft is slavery?
So then although you decry the "slavery" of imposed government service, you are saying its acceptable as long as its in military service?
In my mind result and intent are two different entities, but having said that, I myself don't believe it is particularly rare that an individual sets out to be evil with actual intent.
And I was thinking about the first post of this thread in which you asked if kindness was resulting of necessity which enabled people to function within social groupings, and as the thread has progressed, and I've actively begun thinking about realities, I've almost come to the conclusion that social groupings are in fact what might be most antithetical to kindness.
I think people are much more likely to be kind as and to individuals than they are when within a group. And by that I mean, someone on his or her own is more likely to be kind to others, and also may be more likely to experience kindness from others- especially if they've been identified as belonging to a group that carries negative connotations.
OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?
Not in MY opinion.
Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David
( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )
Kind of hard to understand you on this. Do you believe that raising an army by way of a draft is slavery?
Yes; that conclusion is inescapable.
No other conclusion is possible, David.
