[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[dmb chimes in]
The only problem I have with Arlo's assertion is that the word "invariably"
leaves no room for exceptions. Its possible for such a blindly obedient person
to be fortunate enough to get perfectly moral orders, for example.

[Arlo]
Well, I was really thinking on a historical scale. Certain in the course of one
individual's service, s/he may be "blindly obedient" and come out the other end
never doing anything immoral. But over time, eventually widespread blind
obedience will lead to immorality. That's all I'm saying.

[DMB]
But I really don't see how anyone can disagree with the idea that we ought not
obey immoral orders.

[Arlo]
I think the conversation became about whether or not America is capable of
issuing immoral orders. In other words, and Ben more-or-less said, since the
"state" is seen as morally perfect, blind obedience by OUR soldiers will never
lead to immoral acts. In fact, I'd make the argument that there is circular
reasoning occuring here, namely that one DEFINES "morality" as "what America
does". At the point, asking if something America does is "moral" becomes an
axiomatic truism. We can never do no wrong because we are America. Rah rah rah,
and all that. I think its a safe summation of Platt's views to say that, yes, a
soldier should disobey immoral orders, but since America is incapable of
issuing immoral orders its a mute point. This doesn't solve the historical
problems of blind obedience, it merely escapes the problem by saying upfront
"nothing we do is immoral". As you say, the Reich soldiers felt the same way.
Its not an escape at all really, its just retropective apologistic
cheerleading. Hyper-nationalism. 

[DMB]
I'm totally creeped out that Arlo's assertions on this topic have been met with
anything other than various degrees of agreement.

[Arlo]
Yeah, you know, me too! I thought there'd be arguments over where the line is,
but not whether or not a line should exist!