[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ben]
For instance, the Geneva conventions and the constitution are static social
patterns.  Does the act of blindly following these patterns invariably lead to
immorality?

[Arlo]
One thing before I respond to this point. Again, I am talking about historical
time, not that in any given soldier's service s/he will become immoral. Now,
here I would argue this, the "Geneva Conventions" are an attempt to codify
"moral conduct during war". But witness what is happening now, by blindly
allowing this ONE document to determine "moral behavior", or by altering the
wording to make certain behaviors "moral", one becomes "blindly obedient" to
the *document* rather than to the *meaning*. Consider the case of
"waterboarding". Does it constitute "torture"? If we rewrite the GC to exempt
it, does *that* make it "moral"?

Before I continue, let me ask you, what do YOU feel is the reason behind the
Inquisition, Pol Pot, the Indian Wars and the Holocaust? If it is not obedience
to social patterns over intellectual patterns, what is it? Is it "atheism" and
"theism"?

[Ben]
When you start to give concrete examples of what to blindly follow, it's much
easier to determine whether it is moral or not to follow.

[Arlo]
Again, this is about historical patterns. Can you show me any instance,
historically, where blind obedience to a social structure has never degenerated
into immoral behavior? And, I must say this again too, I'm afraid, I am not
talking about ARLO determining or PLATT determining or ANYONE determining what
is moral/immoral here, I'm saying that the INDIVIDUAL must act on his/her own
guidance as to what constitutes morality. We can sit here are debate,
retrospectively, what was and what was not, and, like the framers of the GC
attempt to codify it somewhat (as a mind game), but at the point in time a
moment is ordered, Solider Ben or Soldier Platt or Soldier Arlo have to
determine if that order is moral in its execution. And my point to that is if
WE, the three soldiers, simply always allow the STATE to tell us what is moral
and what is not, then we will see history repeat itself, because the STATE will
always put its own interests OVER intellectual quality and Dynamic Quality. 

[Ben]
Platt's admitted that it is not moral for soldiers to rape, nor is it moral to
obey orders to commit suicide.  You add that it is moral to drop an atom bomb
on Japan or to shoot a young girl on a battlefield; Platt disagrees and I think
I side with him.

[Arlo]
I think you mean I add that it is IMMORAL to drop an atom bomb or shoot a young
girl. I'm not sure how far you side with Platt, since you've appeared to
indicate America HAS given what you consider immoral orders in the past. If it
does again, would you recommend our soldiers obey them? Platt's premise, when
you get to it, evidenced by his point-by-point response where EVERY American
item was "moral" and EVERY non-American item was "immoral" belies a belief that
WHATEVER America does is moral.

[Ben]
Your underlying argument seems to be that because of these examples, it's
inevitable that in all cases of blind following, immorality will result.

[Arlo]
The historical record is clear. Unless you can show me examples from history
where a social structure has never acted immorally.

[Ben]
But if the arrow's about to kill an innocent person, would you say it's acting
immorally?  Yes and no.  From an irorganic perspective it's moral.  From the
intellectual perspective of altruism, it's acting immorally.

[Arlo]
The arrow is always acting "morally". The person who fired the arrow may or may
not be acting "morally". 

[Ben]
It also occurs to me that perhaps what you really want isn't for soldiers to
stop blindly following, but rather to follow a different but still static set
of patterns.  You want them to have a code of conduct that differs from the one
the military hands to them, wherein they sometimes do something other than what
they're ordered to do.  But you still want them to do what you want them to do.

[Arlo]
No. I want them to make a decision on morality and not give that agency to the
state.

[Ben]
You seem to hold equal scorn for a soldier who's ordered to rape and blindly
follows that order as you do for a soldier who's ordered not to rape and
disobeys that order.  Only one of them has done what you initially sought to
condemn--blindly follow.

[Arlo]
This analogy is flawed, as I said last time. A soldier who would disobey an
order "not to rape" would rape anyways. And, again, if you prefer an army where
soldiers have to be ordered "not to rape", to one where they would disobey an
order "to rape", I'm not sure what more I can say. Good men will disobey orders
to behave immorally. Bad men will not obey an order to be moral... at least not
for long.

[Ben]
Platt and I have argued that in a military setting, soldier A is generally 
preferable to soldier B.  You can give specific examples where this is not the
case, but in those cases it's not the blind following that causes immorality;
it's the immoral order itself.  To suggest that by not blindly following,
soldiers can easily distinguish between moral orders and immoral ones I find
somewhat curious.

[Arlo]
Its not the "immoral order" that rapes a young girl. Its the soldier who chooses
to carry it out. Tell me, in all this, what would you prefer a soldier to do
who receives what s/he feels is an immoral order? Should s/he obey it?

[Ben] 
It's true that at Nuremberg, Nazi official uses blind obedience as a defence for
their actions.  It's not clear that that's necessarily what they were doing. 
Consider for instance a young German soldier who does not blindly follow
orders.... 

[Arlo]
The example you give is simply a social construction of blind obedience. In it,
everyone around the person has transferred moral judgement to the state, and
convince your soldier to do the same. If the soldier felt that his orders were
immoral, he should have declined them. Tell me, what advice would YOU give to
the german soldier who is ordered to drop a gas pellet on a room full of women,
old men and children? Would you advise his to obey or disobey. Based on what?
How would you explain to him his actions were "immoral", even though he was
ordered to do it?

[Ben]
So in summary, it's not clear to me that immorality follows from blindly
following, since I can find many cases where one occurs and the other doesn't.

[Arlo]
Give me an historical example where blind obedience has never led a social
structure to commit immoral acts. 

Give me an example of a social structure that has never issued immoral orders.