[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Ben,

Before I address your thoughtful (and largely correct) assessments, let me 
do a quick back-up.

When this whole shebang started, my point was this (which DMB recently 
restressed) - that neither "theism" nor "atheism" ipso facto makes one 
"moral". My initial post was in response to Platt's claim that "atheism" is 
responsible for more death that "theism" (in world history). My view was 
that neither of these are in-and-of-themselves responsible for any of this, 
the common culprit to BOTH religious killings and secular killings has been 
"blind obedience" to static social power structures (the "church" and the 
"state", respectively).

One, then, should not condemn "theism" for the atrocities committed by the 
church, and one should not blame "atheism" for the atrocities committed by 
the state. One should correctly blame people who support "static social 
structures" over "intellectual structures" or even Quality itself.

There is a fundamental grounding here that must be pointed out, which you 
hint at. That is, does the intellectual patterns adhered to by a social 
structure, give that social structure "carte blanche" in anything it does? 
That is, because America may be "more moral" than North Vietnam, does that 
mean that napalming villages in North Vietnam is "moral"? In other words, 
is there anything America can do that would ever be considered "immoral"?

I have no problem arguing the particularities of Hiroshima, or napalming, 
or waterboarding, or "shooting a girl on the street". But, if the 
counter-position is this, "nothing the US military can ever do is immoral, 
no order it can ever give is immoral, no action it can ever undertake is 
immoral, simply because it is 'America'", then what we are seeing is not 
the morality of particular actions, but the absolute belief that all 
actions of the state are, by definition, moral. It is precisely THIS 
thinking that I call "blind obedience", and it is precisely THIS thinking 
that one finds underlying ALL church and state atrocities in history. In 
all instances, people believed in the absolute, unchallengeable, total 
morality of the actions of the static structure. And, in doing so, were 
able to commit the most atrocious acts while patting themselves on the back 
for their "moral superiority".

Let's consider that the soldier has three options. One, to obey ever order 
without question. Two, to disobey all orders without question. Three, to 
obey or disobey orders based on their adherence to his/her understanding of 
morality. (If you can think of any other option, let me know).

One and two are pretty straight forward. In three, one then must ask, at 
what point does (or should) obedience/disobedience enter the picture? As 
I've already stated, for a military to function, there must be a greater 
emphasis on obedience than in civilian life. When the commander yells 
"drop", I drop. I don't think "why". I obey. And so my level of obeying, 
the point at which I start to challenge orders, is much greater than in 
civilian life. But, there SHOULD be a point. If the commander orders me to 
rape a young girl, for an extreme example, I am going to say "no". Would I 
care about being placed in front of a firing squad for disobeying orders? 
No. In this case, I have to decline an order I find morally repugnant. This 
is the way I believe all soldiers should be. More obedient, yes. Blindly 
obedient, no.

I want to point out that this is not exclusively about "civilian 
casualties". Would you obey an order to slide a glass rod up an enemy 
combatants penis? Would you obey an order to rape an enemy soldier? There 
are a myriad of examples, some more extreme, and others less so, but all 
beget the question, is there anything that, in the act of defending one's 
country, could be immoral? Platt is fond of the atomic bomb, claiming it 
"saved lives" by "ending the war". Should we use atomic weapons in Iraq? 
Should we decimate a few city populations in hopes that it would "end the 
war"? What about biological weapons? Would you obey the order to drop a 
thousand bio-bombs containing nerve gas, or some ebola strain over Iraq? 
Why? Why not?

In the final analysis, I don't confuse the "state" of America with the 
intellectual patterns it claims to uphold. Most of the time the two walk 
hand-in-hand, but ultimately America is NOT the intellectual patterns, it 
is a social-level pattern, and as a social-level pattern, it can succumb to 
immorality just like any other social level pattern, when it places its own 
power interests over the intellectual principles it claims to hold.

Anyways, Ben. Your comments are appreciated, and your format is fine. 
Welcome to the forum.

Arlo