RashadSaleh

15 ms·

1.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
What about every individual person being responsible for what they say and do? There is no scheme where this responsibility can be shifted to someone else. Would you do it? Would you take up the responsibility to correct and monitor and cen
2.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
definitions: equality of opportunity = x equality of outcome = y equation: y = f(x, [z1, z2, ...]) where z1, z2, ... are possibly other factors determining y you seem to say that y = f(x) You need to prove that z1, z2, ... don't exist
3.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
Can we have some numbers here?
4.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
And the best one of those morals is the conviction to follow the law impartially.
5.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
It is right that democracy cannot cast moral judgement on people who reject it. In this sense it is like a mathematical postulate -- you either accept it or reject it, and if you reject it then your proofs cannot be judged by that postulate
6.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not
7.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
The highest ranking officer in a democracy is the president -- an elected civilian. This was not the case in nazi germany, and the military was forced to follow orders, regardless of their consent. This means that if you had the choice and
8.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
All disputes in a civil society must be resolved peacefully through elections and courts of law. Nobody can be above the law, for whatever reason. What you call morals is something that nobody voted on, nobody debated, no judge interpreted
9.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
International law does not really apply and is an ideal. The fact is that the state of the world order is anarchy: there is no president of the world or a parliament voted by all inhabitants of the world. Meanwhile, each country has its own
10.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
What you call the moral imperative wasn't voted on, doesn't have a police to enforce it, doesn't have a judge to interpret it, doesn't have a media to debate it, and you just might happen to change your mind about it a c
11.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not.
12.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. R
13.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of p
14.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders accordi
15.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
Very important point. It should be considered a cornerstone of democracy to have only voluntary drafting -- just like a free press and general elections.
16.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.
17.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
Also see the movie, A Few Good Men
18.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out" If you are a subordinate and you disag
19.
by RashadSaleh 6y ago
I doubt that he actually said that but I could be wrong.