Skip to main content
Topic: double standards (Read 2785 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

double standards

In the locked "The war has begun!" thread, I said:

Quote
It surprises me, but just being at war is making me feel quite sick and anxious. It doesn't matter if we should be at war anymore - I'm behind our troops 200%. BUT I fear I'd have a different opinion if I thought I was going to be called up to fight, which makes me question my judgement on this: I'll go along with the war, because it's the "patriotic" thing to do; but if I though it would affect me, I'd still oppose it? That's not right. I guess it's the exact position the government want us all to be in: not wanting the war, and certainly not feeling that it's worth the sacrifice; but so proud of our troops in Iraq that we won't say too much against the war, in case it sounds like we're against them, when everyone has amazing respect for them.



To whish Neo Neko replied:

Quote
As a civillian we are generraly not acustomed to war. And that IMO is a good thing. I to would question my fortitude and resolve if I were called to fight and serve. There are some people who make a life and career out of military service. But they are not us.  



I've thought about it (quite a lot!), and I don't agree.

I think it's wrong to expect (or ask) other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.


I use the word "woudn't" rather than "couldn't". There are plenty of things that I can't do (for many different reasons) that I ask and expect other people to do every day. But I think it's wrong to ask someone to do something that you wouldn't do, even if you could.


Whether this is something to follow legalistically, or just to make you think twice about things, I'm not sure. I don't know if this is covered by any of the "accepted" moral teachings out there. It probably comes under "love your neighbour as yourself" or "Do to others as you would have them do to you". I think it's a good principle.



So, coming back to the original discussion - I'm not sure if I would fight, even if I could. I'm not a complete pacifist (or a complete coward) and there are circumstances where I would fight if I could. I'm just not sure that this is one of them.


David.

double standards

Reply #1
Quote
I think it's wrong to expect (or ask) other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.

I use the word "woudn't" rather than "couldn't". There are plenty of things that I can't do (for many different reasons) that I ask and expect other people to do every day. But I think it's wrong to ask someone to do something that you wouldn't do, even if you could.

This is a very good point IMO.

If you follow this thought consinstenly, it's wrong to eat beef if you wouldn't kill a cow or it's wrong to use a toilet if you wouldn't clean it or ...

I think everyone gains profit in some way from something done by someone else he wouldn't do himself all the time, without even knowing or thinking about it.

Quote
Whether this is something to follow legalistically, or just to make you think twice about things, I'm not sure. I don't know if this is covered by any of the "accepted" moral teachings out there. It probably comes under "love your neighbour as yourself" or "Do to others as you would have them do to you". I think it's a good principle.


I think stopping everything "wrong" in this definition wouldn't work and isn't a good idea either. Thinking twice is better - It can cause thankfullness and appreciation.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

double standards

Reply #2
Quote
If you follow this thought consinstenly, it's wrong to eat beef if you wouldn't kill a cow or it's wrong to use a toilet if you wouldn't clean it or ...

It's funny you mentioned those, because they were the two things I thought of too.

I think I'd do both. But I wouldn't want to eat the cow I'd killed, or eat beef on the day I'd killed a cow. Nothing moral - I just don't enjoy food as much that I've prepared myself, and seeing it in an even more raw state isn't going to help! As for the toilets - well - there seem to be plenty of people around happy to use toilets and never clean them - you should see some of the houses we rented! or maybe not  :x


And I agree - I think "don't expect (or ask) other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself" is more useful as a way of thinking twice about things than as a rule that you make for yourself and then follow blindly. I doubt the moral sayings of Jesus were meant to be followed blindly either - he seemed to take a dim view of people blindly following laws of the time without thinking what the point was.


right - that's morality and religion covered - is there anyway of tying this into the piracy thread too? 


Cheers,
David.

double standards

Reply #3
Quote
I think it's wrong to expect (or ask) other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.
i will send my boss to read this thread 
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

double standards

Reply #4
Quote
I don't know if this is covered by any of the "accepted" moral teachings out there. It probably comes under "love your neighbour as yourself" or "Do to others as you would have them do to you". I think it's a good principle.

I think Kant's categorical imperative is close to what you're speaking of.

And I agree, I think it's a good principle.

double standards

Reply #5
Quote
I think it's wrong to expect (or ask) other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself.


@2B
I never said I would not. Because I would. What I said was....

Quote
As a civillian we are generraly not acustomed to war. And that IMO is a good thing. I to would question my fortitude and resolve if I were called to fight and serve. There are some people who make a life and career out of military service. But they are not us. 


Which means that since I am a civilian and not a military officer I do not have the same mind set. There is some point in war where no matter who you are you will be scarred shitless. Draws full of brownies. But these people enlisted for the opportunity to do just this. If I were called to serve I would. But not without a serious case of butterflies and nausia. I would be nervous to no end.

double standards

Reply #6
Yes Neo, I have no doubt that you would serve if needed.


What I was questioning was the course taken by our (UK) government. Though the majority of people in the UK are still opposed to war, the politicians rightly assumed that, once the war started, we'd all support out troops. Fair enough - but it makes those of us opposed to the war into hypocrites.


I guess we have to reduce our support to "We think you're very brave, and we hope that the war goes well - but we wish you weren't fighting it". That's not much support, is it?


But if the government starts a war which their electorate don't support, what do they expect?

D.

double standards

Reply #7
That's why most wars are started by men too old to be on the front.  Most/alll of the hawks in
the Bush administration have never been in the "at risk" military.  Bush was in National Guard in
an era when they were never deployed overseas.  Colin Powell has been speaking in favor at
the UN, but that is his job as mouthpiece. 

Despite his "moral conviction" I haven't heard that Bush encouraged his daughters to
join the army to help the cause.


double standards

Reply #9
Quote
Bush was in National Guard in an era when they were never deployed overseas.


And apparently was AWOL for part of his service.

http://www.awolbush.com/

Quote
I haven't heard that Bush encouraged his daughters to join the army to help the cause.


I believe, in fact, that out of the entire US Congress only one Senator has a child serving in the military.

Rob

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020