Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take the Vietnam War for example, during that time do you think any of those that may have gotten drafted but decided to choose say going to prison over fighting were wrong? Of course during that time the U.S had never ending propaganda that communism was the most awful thing to ever exist and decided to send people to war for their own selfish and megalomaniac reasons but for those that saw through it and would choose prison over fighting would you view them as the ones in the wrong for defying what the government told them they were supposed to do?
We have a moral obligation to oppose the current "government" that is based on killing, war profiteering, and corporate greed. This is the worst I have ever seen this country.
Who defines the morality involved? Those who write the laws of the land. So if your opposition breaks laws, you will be found to be "morally" wrong and sent to prison. But if your opposition prevails and you change the laws to adhere to your idea of what is morally correct, then you are following the prevailing moral code and you have done the right thing.
In other words, the winner writes the history books and writes the laws. Morality is not universal, it is plastic and is defined by the laws of society.
The anti-Vietnam war movement was large enough that it brought down a president (Johnson) and ultimately succeeded in getting us out of Vietnam. By that outcome it was a moral movement. If it had not succeeded it would have gone down as an illegal, immoral movement.
It is "right" to do only what is right and reasonable.
Then, question arises, what actually IS right and reasonable?
How does one judge?
For example, one judges based on information provided to him. Even the brightest mind ever, I know one. Always did everything only according to rightness and reason. But, still made conclusions based on THEN current information that NOW is known to be a lie. A fabrication. A twist of greatest ho known to humanity - history.
On decisions of nature of rightness and reason, which are moral ones, there is only one guide to listen to. That is ones voice of conscience.
But, then again, living in "society" one simply can not follow it, and not be ostracized, or disposed of in more permanent ways, as society, as such, wants to be stable. hence, it does not tolerate disobedient individuals as they pose threat to it.
Example of how society enslaves individual is Christianity. Every power is from God and one has to obey it (no matter how evil that power is). It is not for one to judge, one will be rewarded in afterlife (maybe). This worked for thousands of years and for millions, billions of slaves, willingly going into slaughter house, bringing their families to the altar, murdering others.
A combination, a kahutz of a priest and a politician. Then you have what you have.
Who defines the morality involved? Those who write the laws of the land. So if your opposition breaks laws, you will be found to be "morally" wrong and sent to prison. But if your opposition prevails and you change the laws to adhere to your idea of what is morally correct, then you are following the prevailing moral code and you have done the right thing.
In other words, the winner writes the history books and writes the laws. Morality is not universal, it is plastic and is defined by the laws of society.
The anti-Vietnam war movement was large enough that it brought down a president (Johnson) and ultimately succeeded in getting us out of Vietnam. By that outcome it was a moral movement. If it had not succeeded it would have gone down as an illegal, immoral movement.
breaking laws is not always "morally wrong." get a grip on yourself there.
shooting people. spitting on soldiers coming home. executing cops that are there to protect those that can't defend themselves. Pipe bombs to people houses. There is a thousand ways you could be morally wrong.
the examples you gave can be turned right back on you. How You and those protesters treated the infantrymen coming home was a disgrace. Forcing soldiers to take off their uniforms is morally wrong in that case you sited.
for those that saw through it and would choose prison over fighting would you view them as the ones in the wrong for defying what the government told them they were supposed to do?
It's how our country was founded, a group of people who thought what the government was doing was wrong and fought....the American Revolution and all that. IMO it is unpatriotic NOT to speak up/protest when we feel the government is doing wrong. It is the one thing that sets our democracy apart from all others, and I hope people realize this before we lose what we set out to be.
no, it's morally wrong to NOT oppose such a govt'. ALL govt's are inherently wrong, cause they use force, or at least threaten it, to retain their power to tax you and force you to serve in their military, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
