Phil’s Blog

This article discusses the shift in the economic philosophy of the Chinese government. The Chinese leaders are ready to move from having a command economy to a mixed economy. To progress towards that objective, the government is promoting entrepreneurship. This is a follow up of a constitutional amendment passed a few months before that favored private-property rights. In an effort to level the playing field for private businesses the Chinese government will give the same treatment it grants to state businesses, easier access to bank loans, lower taxation, and the removal of other restrictions. Another factor that affected the shift is the recognition of China as a member of the World Trade Organization. Also, in the new global economy China needs to be more competitive, and the creation of private businesses will help the growth of the economy by creating millions of jobs. China’s Premier Wen Jiabao stated that the government will “encourage, support and guide” private businesses.
Since the acquisition of Hong Kong by mainland China, the Chinese government established the concept of “one country, two systems”, meaning that the government is still centralized, however the economic system will become more capitalist. As we have learned in class, capitalism is an economic system in which the factor of production and distribution are owned and operated by private businesses; in contrast communism is an economic system in which the government decides what is produced and how it will be distributed. Furthermore, under capitalism individuals have some basic rights, the right to private property, the right to make a profit and keep it, the right to fair competition, and the right to choose how they will run their lives, the Chinese government must work harder towards respecting civil and human rights, it must grant freedom of expression so that ideas may flow freely in the pursuit of economic development.
For China to turn to a more capitalist or free-market enterprise is a great shift, it is a necessary step if China wants to become more competitive; however much more must be done about the respect of civil rights. But the move to permit entrepreneurship is a major step towards economic growth, as we have learned; entrepreneurs create jobs, and wealth. And if China hopes to become a major competitor in the global market it must learns how to utilize its great labor force efficiently.
How this article does relate to our field of study? First it presents the concept of economics, which is the study of how a society produces goods and services, and how it distributes those goods and services, two economic systems are defined, communism and capitalism. Secondly, the article talks about entrepreneurship, which is accepting the risk of starting and running a business. It also emphasizes the idea that entrepreneurs create jobs and by such help the growth of the economy. As we have learned this point relates to the idea of the “invisible hand” a theory advanced by Adam Smith, which describes the process by which self-directed gains are turned into social and economic benefits for the rest of the community. Furthermore, the article presents the concept of the mixed economy, which is an economic system that has the benefits created by a free market, such as the creation of wealth, and the benefits of a socialist or communist system, such as greater equality among its people.
The article emphasizes the importance for China to move towards a free market economy so as to become more competitive in the global market. It also shows that the Chinese government understands the need to develop a strong economy, not only at the national level but also at the international level. It also shows that the Chinese government is ready to change the way it had run its economy, and starts helping entrepreneurs in the development of businesses. We learned that not long ago investing in China was too risky; this was due mainly by the fact that China had a command economy; however, it is now a focus for investments from U.S. companies. Furthermore, the acceptance of China as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) brought China to the forefront in global trade. It is up to the Chinese government to take its place in the global economy.

 The Neo-Malthusian argument:
 World hunger is caused by overpopulation
Food production cannot keep up, even with great technology.
Too poor to buy the food, and too overpopulated to grow enough.
Most of the misery, hunger and poverty happens there.
At current rate, it will be misery for all.
 Countries cannot sufficiently control their population growth rates
Population doubles every 35 years and triples every 55 years.
Even the ones that succeeded as Bangladesh will double in 30.
 Therefore feeding those in developing countries will produce great harm.
 The Humanitarian argument:
 Life is intrinsically valuable.
‘Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” (Robert Watson)
 Affluent nations have the resources to eliminate hunger.
23,000 die daily from malnutrition
Suffering and misery is bad, if it is in our power to prevent it, without sacrificing anything, we ought, morally, to act.
There is enough food for all. (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002, FAO 1998)
 Therefore, we are obliged to prevent evil whenever we can, and whenever doing so does not harm us
 The Developmentalist argument:
 Political and economic decisions are the causes of poverty.
Poverty causes hunger.
 If rich nations contribute to the effort, poverty can be eliminated
$60 billion a year cuts global poverty in half by 2015.
$165 billion a years goes to U.S. military contractors. (US Bureau of International Organization Affairs, July 15, 1997
 The economic development of poor countries will eliminate world hunger.
They adhere to Confucius’ proverb: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and he will be fed for life.”
The economic vitality of a wealthy nation, depend on a healthy international economy.
 Therefore, the economic development of poor countries will benefit both rich and poor alike.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/hardin_g_living_on_a_lifeboat.htm (Life Boat Theory)
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/population_readings.htm
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=217102005 (Population)
http://www.duke.edu/web/ddha/geopolitics/Geopolitics-of-Hunger.htm
http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=1635 (The ecology of hunger)
http://www.landreform.org/wp6.htm (Dependency on food aids.)
http://costofwar.com/ (Cost comparison)

It seems evident, following the foot steps of the previous paper, that the theory this humble writer will choose, is Kant’s theory of obligation. In an attempt to present a personal view about the theory, this paper will refute the arguments presented against the theory in the book by Thomas F. Wall, Thinking Critically about Moral Problems. The first objection brought forth, is that the theory violates the criterion of universality; since it requires all moral rules to be absolute. The second objection is that it violates the criterion of external consistency, because the only worthwhile motive for an action is duty (p. 43).
To bring forth a counter argument, it must be shown that Kant’s theory explains more facts than its antagonist. Furthermore, it will be shown that Kant’s theory not only does not contradict the moral beliefs hold as true by most, but is a priori for all morals to be.
The basic concepts within the theory are that man is a rational being with free will, and that he has a duty to use that rationality and will, in the development of its human identity. To be moral is to be rational, and the only necessary motive to be moral is the duty, or the obligation that ensued from rationality. All members of the human species are obliged by the sole fact that they are human. This fact does not change, because of time or surrounding, it is universal.
Rational thinking is a priori for moral decisions. A rule is said to be ethical, not because it appears to be so, but, because reasoning led us to that assertion. It is therefore to say that strength in simplicity is found when a rule is absolute. It does not give way to misinterpretation. It is also just, since it applies to all alike. To say that a rule has a priority over another and that the secondary rule could be violated, so that the primary rule could be fulfill; violate the criterion of internal consistency. Is it morally right to break a rule? If a rule could be broken, it implies that the reasoning that established that rule is faulty. And, if one would ask the many, which will be more just, a rule with exceptions to the rule, or, a rule that applies to everyone no matter the occasion. The answer may show us that the majority believes that a rule should apply the same for everyone.
By creating reasons for the superiority of an ethical rule over another, one is saying that there are good reasons to break an ethical rule. So, if one would make a rhetorical argument in favor of overriding a rule with another, and if the argument appeals to the majority of the people (if it is an accepted fact), then the actions that follow the rule would be moral. All are aware that one rule say “thou shall not kill”, this fact is accepted by all. However, one reasoned at time that one can override that rule; such is the case in time of war. That action is viewed by the majority as just, and right. Was not “do not kill” a moral rule? Was it not wrong to kill? How one would go and do which he knows to be wrong, and argues that now it is right? According to our book, war is a moral act, since the killing in war is morally right. The absolute rule states that killing is morally wrong, and that at no time could it be morally right. Kant’s theory accounts for all possibilities, since it does not change according to the situation. And even if the many see fit to violate a moral rule and use reason to justify their deed, it does not imply that the action is right. The many could be wrong. Kant’s reasoning stays firm in asserting the validity of the moral absolute. The moral is based on rational thinking, and it fulfills the criterion of universality.
Furthermore, if one is not in the development of oneself, how one would know the reasoning behind his or her actions? Could one be call free, if rationality does not lead him or her? And is it not the desire of all to be at peace with oneself? Does any one wish for conflicts, and distress? To be a rational man is to seek to be one with oneself. According to Kant, the only reason for following the path of rationality is duty. This assertion bring the objection that it is not consistent with the accepted believe of the majority. Most believe that the motives for being ethical are numerous, and that the important factor is that the result of the action is good. Simply said, the result justifies the means. Kant rejects that assertion by declaring that the only motive for ethical behavior is the duty that ensued when one decides to be ethical.
The decision is neither based on the emotional whim of the moment, nor, because it feels good, but on the understanding of one’s identity. If one follows the desire to do good, even for altruistic reasons, does his or her feelings encompass all being? If one views the motive as a duty, then one must be ethical with all. As a member of the humankind, one is obliged to be rational. One is obliged to act ethically even toward one’s enemy. One is ethical because one is rational. Moreover, will not the majority agree that with status come obligations and duties? And, is not to be human a status amidst species? Then, obligations and duties ensued from being human. Furthermore, is not the duty to act in accordance with one status a priori to fulfill the status? If so, than Kant’s theory does not violate external consistency. The majority of people will agree that mankind is a status, and that one must live in accord with one’s importance. One is ethical because one has the duty to be human.
This paper has shown that Kant’s theory of obligation does not violate the criterions of universality and external consistency. It is true that by establishing moral absolute, the theory does not consider various alternatives to a situation, but it is more consistent; since, if one knows the moral absolute, one knows how to act, no matter the situation. Therefore, the theory answers all facts. It has been shown that human are rational entities, and with rationality come obligations. Within the same format of an absolute, the sole obligation worth considering is duty, since it is an elementary part of being a rational being; a status that requires an ethical behavior, and as shown a fact agreed on by the majority. Those two aspects of Kant’s theory are appealing to this writer. They create a simple theory to follow, however difficult it might be to implement. It can be argued that Kant’s theory is not practical, since it requires that man be always at his best, and that one’s individuality converges with the collective. To be rational, and to live a moral life, one must make many sacrifices. As Pythagoras said: “Reason is immortal, all else mortal.”

The ethical problem that this paper explore is war; within the concept of the just war theory expressed in an online article “The Ethics of War”, retrieved from www.bbc.uk/religion/ethics/war/jwintro.shtml . Only the introduction will be used as a reference for the paper. This issue is current, since the U.S military forces are involved in a war in Iraq ; however, this paper will not deal directly with that situation, but instead focus on the ethical perspective from the act utilitarianism theory. The conclusion may bring forth the opinion that the Iraq war is just or unjust, depending on the condition of the theory of the just war to be incorporated or not in the act utilitarianism theory; either opinion is a mere circumstance.

The introduction defines the concept of the just war as an attempt to reconcile some Christian principle. The problem of taking lives does not fit the principle of not killing another human life, so reasons were needed to do war. The theory is design as to be a framework of references for an individual or state in the evaluation of the possibility of war. The theory has two elements, first it defines the condition under which warfare is acceptable. Second, it specifies the appropriate conduct during warfare. This paper will explore the concept of the just war through the eyes of an act utilitarianism theory follower.

Act utilitarianism was introduced by Jeremy Bentham. The basic view is that what is right is which produces the greatest good and least evil. Jeremy Bentham believed that only pleasure is valuable in itself, and that all actions should lead to pleasure. The theory is not based on rules, however, Bentham developed, the hedonic calculus, a system of evaluation for deciding which action will produce the most good. It is through that system that the evaluations of a just war will proceed. The first element is the intensity of the good produce by a just war.

How strong of a pleasure will be produce by a just war. First, a question must be asked, is there any pleasure produced by war? According to St Augustine , peace will be one, he wrote: “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” However, a state should only go to war if it has a reasonable chance of winning and bringing peace, if not the war is unethical. So, we must assume that the war is just. Therefore, if peace is the produced pleasure, we could say that the intensity is strong. Peace includes many pleasures, it ease social and economic relations. Furthermore, if the war is conducted according to the just war principle, civilians casualties are minimized, and the least damage to civilian’s infrastructures are caused. Consequently, a just war will produce more pleasure than evil.

We must now evaluate the duration of the pleasure. Since, one goes to war when there is a good chance of success; and it is common knowledge that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death especially with no chance of success, then it must be assume that the just war is waged only when it fulfill that criterion. Then peace will have some duration, however, the war must be won swiftly.

Next, how certain are we that pleasure will be produced if we wage a just war? Since, we agreed that the war was waged in accordance with the rules expressed in the just war theory; such as: that the war must be justified, and have moral weight, and it is “to put right a wrong”. Then it can be assumed that pleasure will ensue when peace will be restored. Nevertheless, we need to evaluate to when that pleasure will occur.

Even as we assumed that it is a just war, and the intent is to defeat the enemy swiftly; it is unknown how long this would take. Consequently, we can not state to when the pleasure will occur. When a state fights a just war, it is restricted in the might it could use to terminate the war. During WWII for example the U.S used nuclear weapons on two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki , killing many civilians, and by such would not be considered a just act within a jut war. It was justified as a speedy end to the war. Accordingly, a just war may have difficulty in winning a quick war.

The next step is to see whether it will lead to more pleasure, the fecundity of peace. One could easily agree that peace has many pleasures, and as a result, would be desired by the many. Thus, it can be said that peace will fecund pleasure. In the same instance, we could agree that it would be of the same type. Meaning that the pleasures produced by a state of peace will have some peaceful characteristics within them, they will ease social and economic relations, and permit coexistence. Hence, we could conclude that it will have the same purity. The last step in our evaluation is to weigh up the number of persons affected by the just war.

A war of any kind affects the whole population of the country at war; for that reason, peace will affect them all. Even, the enemy combatants would gain from peace. They will be no more killing, and daily routine would resume. Moreover, when a war is just and both parties respect the rule of engagement, then both side benefits from such a behavior. Then, it can be concluded that more people would be affected positively than negatively.

It seems that according to the act utilitarianism theory, a just war would be a right action, since it fulfills most of the criterions. The only criterion left uncertain, is on the propinquity of the pleasure. However, this concept only relates to a just war and not to wars in general. Then, and only then can it be considered a good action by the act utilitarianism.

This question assumes that one has acquired a set of standards by which one governs one’s life; and not just follows one’s desires and wants. However, everyone was taught right from wrong, good from bad, and whatever one would later do with it, is up to each one. This paper presents this writer’s education in the ethics. It is not intended to be an in-depth analysis, but a chronological overview of various ethical principles and rules encountered during one’s development. Moreover, the focus is to present a personal view on the values taught. A summary of this writer’s philosophy of ethics will conclude the paper.

One first encountered the idea of right and wrong at a young age from one’s family, and school environment. At an early age, one was taught the societal point of view about ethical standards. One was told not to lie, not to steal, not to kill, and the difference between good actions and bad ones. The main motivation to follow those rules was fear of punishment. Those rules, therefore, would have been followed not because of acceptance and understanding of their values, but as a necessity, and when the opportunity to transgress would occur, the rules would be broken. However, it was not before one began one’s education that one developed an opinion about the meaning of being human, and the obligations that ensued.

The elementary years of education were spent in a Catholic boarding school. There, one was taught religion and God’s moral principles, and rules. One was told that God was good, just and merciful. However, if one would transgress the rules, one would find oneself in “hell”. Furthermore, one was told about the son of God, the savior of man. One was told that He showed compassion, even toward the wicked; however, those that taught so didn’t show any. Moreover, He was said to be just and forgiving; however, those that preached so were not. One came across many of the moral principles and rules taught in the Holy Book, however, one did not encounter in one’s surrounding, a person, with such qualities. Therefore, one rejected that indoctrination, and one did not comprehend the value of those virtues. However, one gained the knowledge of the characteristics of a “good man” as projected through the son of God. Family, school, and lived experiences were the first sources for this writer’s personal ethical view. However, one did not embraced those ethical principles, and thought of them as a mean for control by the one in power and place of influence. But one’s conscience could not be kept silent.

The idea of an ideal human was born. One wished to become such a man. That desire pushed one into the study of philosophy, and through the study of philosophical arguments one developed one’s belief. Those philosophers were the main source for a personal ethical development. The primary influence was the teaching of Socrates through the writing of Plato, especially in the Republic . In the search of defining happiness, the discussion explored the various characteristics of a moral man, a good man. Some of the virtues present in such an individual are integrity, justice, honesty and compassion. It was through the reading of Jean Paul Sartre, that one realized the greater potential of mankind. As Sartre wrote in Existentialism and Human Emotions : “Man is nothing else but what he Will himself to be”, that principle one had to accept, for without it there would be no reason for ethical standards. One must have free-will to be responsible, and decide on a certain path. From this point on, the foundation for one’s ethical principles was established. First, man has a will and it is a priori to fulfill one’s identity. Rational thinking and emotional desires to have a purpose for human life eased the acceptance of such an ethical philosophy.

Other philosophers were the source for further understanding and reinforcement. Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed in Emile , that not only the learning of academics is necessary, but that the self-development of human awareness is primordial for the development of a good man. Virtues are not taught, they are discovered. The same principle is found in the ending of Candide, a book by Voltaire, “Go and cultivate your own garden.” Many more helped forge the belief that a good man is a moral man, a rational man that took on as his duty to become human. It will take too long to list them all, however, a few, need some attention.

During a period of time one was involved in Judaism. One studied the teaching of a few scholars of Cabala, the Jewish mysticism. During those years, this writer was a religious man, and found connection to a creator. The main principle in their wisdom that appealed to this writer is the concept that one should do, and direct all actions for the sake of heaven. This principle requires that not only the actions be good, but that the motivation be for the sake of duty. One’s soul was lifted, however, there too, one found more hypocrites than righteous men. Till these days this writer is struggling to find happiness. However, one now embraces those ideals, and attempts to follow a few ethical principles, such as integrity, honesty and compassion. Those principles are the foundation for this writer’s philosophy of ethics.

Various sources helped forge those personal ethical principles. Family, society and the view of a few philosophers were the main sources. However, later on, experiences and reflection helped define those principles. One pondered on those problems that forge the human condition. Through the philosophers’ wisdom one learned the method of critical thinking, and the value of rational thinking. One learned to revere virtues and seek wisdom. This writer’s theory could be defined as an ethic of principles. It is quite similar to Kant’s theory of obligation. It requires that one has a good will, and be a rational individual. It also requires that one’s actions be done for the sake of duty, the duty to fulfill one’s identity, the identity of mankind. However, it also incorporates the concept of leading a good life as expressed by Aristotle, or, of following the golden path defined by Confucius. Those theories require temperance and wisdom; they teach a life of moderation. By following those paths one not only will fulfill one’s identity, but one will also discover happiness. However, this writer has a long journey ahead before being a moral person.

I see that many of my friends like to converse about GOD, many as it appears do believe in its existence. I must tell you that I am yet convince of it, especially in regard to the way it is defined.

Many are basing their opinion or belief on the words of a book, the bible. It is my opinion that if such concept (god) exist even without the book one should be able to find it, and knows its purpose, for Abraham found it even before talking to him (according to the story, he is the father of monoteism)

But to ease in the discussion I will take the position that it does exist.

So, let’s assume its existence, and agree that it is not a form, that it is not bound by time or space, nor bound by man understanding or knowing of it (meaning even if man does not recognize it, it will not infere in it existence). So why should god worry about man’s love of him or her?, and be so pissed if man does not recognize him or her?

It creates all that is, what is seen and what is not. (since mankind is bound by time and space..its knowledge is relative to those limitations) so man knows little of the whole. Nor it needs mankind worship or love to be. For if he or she is not, then god has a limit, and so a form, which contradict our first assumption about god.

It is the whole and each part. It is one but not one as a part..
And so it is in (within) mankind.–for example: if mud is used to create man, man is mud, but mud is not man.

So god is the mud that made man, so man is god, but god is not man.

God is not ouside the whole, for it would have then a form, and such be bounded. This is similar for those in philosophy of the view of Spinoza.

I assume that mankind is a free rational being, so that it has the power to make a decision, and choose to either recognize god or not..If god forces man’s hand by making a wrong path for man to fail, and the right path for man to follow, then this god does not respect man’s free rational attribute, and behaves as a dictator.
For example: Saddam has established a rule of law for Iraq, and who followed his views was well treated, they formed his own clan, and those that oppossed him, were outsiders, and seeked and destroyed, for their lack of love for him.
If such is god, according to those mentioning the bible, then god and Saddam have much in common.

So such god I do not presume to be.

So now if mankind is a free rational being, then mankind has the option to make a decision..to have a choice a few things are needed.:

First a decision must be needed, meaning to chooce to believe or not. It is evident that decision making is intrinsic to mankind existance. In such the decision is to believe or not..and by such it will form mankind existance, or philosophy of life including all actions, thoughts and emotions. For example: if I believe honesty is a good value, then I will have to be honest with myself and my surrounding , if not then my belief in such value is irrelevant, and just a fake, so if I believe in a god, I would have to behave in such a manner that shows my faith, if I go and kill other, than it shows that I believe in a god that love violence, for why should I do, which go would not?
So it is apparent then one must make a decision, if to believe in a god, or just one’s own philosophy..therefore, the decision is needed.

The second part relates to the beneficience of one’s decision. If one chose to belief does it benefit the whole, rather than not. Any rule or principle descending from the decision must fulfill the criterion of beneficience..it must benefit more than it harms. If my belief in god, force me to reject those that don’t, and as many are doing calling them sinners, and damning them to hell, such belief creates more harm than good, and such would not be valid.

According to history, it appears that the choice of believing has brought more harm than good, and such it will be more favorable not to believe. How many wars have been done on the name of that god? Till today, mankind is killing his brother in the name of a belief in a god..and this has started since the beginning of religion.

Third: Does it respect autonomy (man being a free rational)

If man does not choose, god’s way, does god punish man..it appears to be so, according to the bible..In such god would not respect autonomy..and mankind would be better to choose not to believe. For as stated such god would only be a dictator, and a narcissit one I may add.

However, the choice is in man’s hand..would it not be better for man to behave ethicaly and humanly with its kind and surrounding, and not believe, or believe and behave without no rationality and inhumanly.

I choose at the moment to not focus on God, but rather on mankind, and try to behave as humanly as possible.
I would love to live in a world where we will all be good with each other no matter what faith or lack of one will have. But I am a dreamer.
Peace No War

Once a man’s words were value, no need for contracts, if one man said: “I give you my words” then it was sufficient.

Today, a man’s words are meaningless, words are to manipulate and not stay truth.

Instead of evaluating toward a human identity, mankind regressed toward, a human-animal identity. We are more preoccupied with survival, than self development.

I am rereading “the Discourse on Inequality”, however in its original version (French), and I am sadden to see, that even then already, those alarming concerns were brought to light, and as it seem in our state of mind today, little has been learn. We are more Animalistic than Humanistic.

Why should Iran stop developing nuclear energy? Even if their intent is to make a bomb, is it not their right? Are they not member of the non-proliferation treaty? And why the US does not required Israel to dismantle it nuclear capability, or in the same token to all nuclear power?
Was it not the US that armed Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, causing the death of millions on both sides? And furthermore, was it not the US that armed the Taliban in their fight against the Soviets invasion?
“No more war, no more bloodshed” (Anwar Sadat)
This president (Bush) has already shown that he can do as he wishes, was not the invasion of Iraq illegal?
12 years of embargo causing hundreds of thousands to die needlessly, the very young, the young and the old, all innocent’s civilians that already had to suffer the hardship of their own leader. So now, he wants to turn to Iran, and do the same to the people, are they not suffering enough from the oppression of their government?
Rather than helping then in their development and showing compassion, the US imperialist power, wishes to force them to submission.
Enough is enough, let the people be.
War appears to be the only way this country, the US of A knows. It will not talk to Iran, because the leader refuses to accept Israel, so what the US doing, refusing to accept Iran? Refusing to talk to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to Hugo Chavez, to Fidel or Raul Castro, and the list can go on. Who put the US at the top of the world, the dictator of all nations?
In regard to Hamas and Hezbollah, I may not agree with their tactics, but nor do I agree with the tactics of this government (US). However, can I take arm against it, as they do against the people of Iraq? Or intend to do with Iran? Or I am supposed to follow the democratic process and make my voice heard in a peaceful manner. So why does this government do not do as it orders its citizens?
Why should he now listen to his congress or his people? The cowboy is having fun, but not for long. I hope that he will be soon removed from office, so the carnage can stop.
I feel for the people of Iran, not only do they must deal with their own government, but also with the imperialist pig. I am sure that they remember the US support for the Shah (a dictator, puppet of the US).

A soldier in a combat unit is not train to befriend the enemy, his mind must be on alert, it is a kill or be killed. The enemy includes all individuals member of the invaded country, especially, when the enemy is engaged in guerilla warfare–IED, and suicide bombing- and moreover, when the enemy does not have a uniform–all members of the country are enemies.

My experience: 1982 Lebanon War, IDF

I was in the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon fighting Hamas and Hezbollah fighters. On patrol I told my officer, that if anyone approaches the vehicle, I shoot to kill-

Do not bring me drinks, flowers, or food- I am a soldier at war, I have a gun in my hand–Logic says: stay away from me.

The officer told me that it was unacceptable. One is allow shooting only if a gun is seen, or shoot at.

If I am the enemy, then I use these idiotic rules against you. This is one of the reasons, for so many casualties.

There is nothing nice about war. A soldier is send to butcher people whom he or she doesn’t know- Just because he or she was ordered to do so-

Let the soldiers do their war.

The politicians are quit to use the soldiers to do their dirty work, in the name of national security, so at least let them do their work, for which they have been trained.

Does not use soldier as policemen; this is two different jobs, with different skills and requirements.

What do they do to a soldier in is first day of arrival to a boot camp?

They shave his head; give him a uniform, and a number by which he or she will be identify. Then they go on to humiliate, and break the recruit both physically and mentally, to prepare him or her to KILL

Because killing is not as easy as it seems.

And the memory never leaves.

But, if a government going to send troops to war, then let the soldiers be what they were trained to be–KILLERS

According to the last blog, we agree that indeed man is free, free to define himself and the principles he will choose to follow.
Furthermore, we agree that the tool used to make choices is rationality.
Here we are at an impasse, for freedom and rationality are interdependent. If one is free then one can choose, and if one is rational, then one needs to be free, if not there will be no reason for rationality.
So in reality, our impasse is our solution, and it shows that if man has logic, which all we can agree on, then by deduction we just agreed that he is free. And if we agreed that man if free, than by deduction we agreed that he is rational.
But not so fast, I hear in the background, man can be free, but not rational, he may have logic, but unable to use it. Look around, crimes, rapes, murders, wars, thefts, all man made, choice of man, choice of free man, but no rationality for them, just emotional desires. As my friend earlier stated, they are survival beings, and not much more.
Indeed and it is there that lay the foundation of the inequality among man, we are free rational beings, but some choose to use that rationality, that tool, to develop themselves, while others, and to my dismay, the majority, refuse to use rationality in their decision making. They just follow impulses, what feels good at the time, just to fulfill a need, physical, emotional, the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
While some, no matter if their basic needs are met, are already ready to seek understanding, and use rationality to achieve the ultimate goal of their freedom, the development of their uniqueness.
And this is true freedom, free even from Maslow’s hierarchy.
And how do I know that I live it. I experience it, and that why.
Peace No War