So your assumption is that morals change depending on what other peoples' actions are. Wrong.
First, how do morals change here? They don't, but they don't apply.
"Morality ends where the gun begins." -- Ayn Rand
Why did she say that? The reasoning behind it is very simple, because if you assume that survival is about morality, then you're assuming that which cannot be support in and of itself.
"War is not about who's right, but who's left." -- Bertrand Russell
Now, why did old Russell say this? Because, even though he was a pacifist [to my knowledge], he acknowledged that when you're in a war, it's all about survival yet again.
Two totally opposing views in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics coming to the very same conclusion for the very same reason. If you're such an authority on morality, I'd like you to explain it.
On top of that, you ignore my statement that countries, armies, and battalions are a collection of individuals in which each person is responsible for the actions they take. It is no more reasonable to start killing all of the black people as a "response" to the actions of one black person who mugged you on the street.
Doesn't matter. From an individual case of a mugger to complete nations locked in life or death struggles, the result is the same. If there is an aggressor, the defender has the
total right to reprisal with no limitations. This is know also the Castle Defense principle in law. You have the right to use any force to repel an aggressor. PERIOD AND END OF STORY.
Your statements of the actions between A and B make sense on an individual level, and from a legal standpoint. But you have taken both of those and changed them to countries and morals, respectively. You have given no reasons for why morals are not involved in this situation except for "people should do this", and it's "normal" for a defender to do this. But what people should do to survive, and what people should do to remain moral beings are not the same things.
So, it's moral to let an aggressor hurt you? Right right.
Okay, I will. Provided they don't shoot me on sight with the assumption that I'm an enemy combatant.
You have to be aggressive to be an enemy combatant, dumb ass.
The fact that you are using words like "considered" and "implied" proves that you are not talking about morals. Morals are constant.
No, morals are contextual. Causality is the marker of whether something is moral or not. In this regard, the meter by which something is moral, may stay the same in this case, is it life or anti-life being the best meter for all moral propositions.
Otherwise, I could "consider" it moral to kill people with unibrows just because I consider it an affront. I don't know why I pulled that example out, but it could very well be what some people may think.
Morality does not pre-exist you, me, or Baby Jesus. It comes into play as an active mental exercise. Try again, Capt. Plato!
Yes, of course you have a right to it. You earned it, and someone taking it away from you forcefully is wrong. But giving it away to someone less-fortunate isn't wrong, and I would argue that it's right.
Only right if it's about benevolence, but it's done because you feel you owe it, then it's wrong.
And now lets get to the nitty gritty here. What you're assuming is two things.
1) Morality is some stone slab of shoulds and should-nots. Guess what? IT IS NOT THAT WAY. Morality is a very simple set of principles that allows you to gauge [e.g. CONSIDER, ZOMG, THINKING ABOUT IT?!?! NO WAI!] what is right and wrong in a given situation.
2) That some how morality exists as part of war. There is no such morality in war, otherwise it would have been concluded as such by a myriad of philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists and so on. Not a single one agrees with you. And you never even given one good damn reason to think otherwise. You want war to be some sort of gentleman's game. It's not. When you turn someone's head into a pile of red goo, you're in a state of doing such acts as a means to SURVIVE. SURVIVAL IS PRE-MORAL BECAUSE MORALITY IS NOT ABOUT SURVIVAL INSOMUCH THAT SURVIVAL CAN BE DONE WITHOUT MORAL CONSIDERATIONS AND/OR PROPOSITIONS. Therefore, any of your bullshit, backpeddling, down right fucking wrong assumptions about war, survival, and the like are totally fucking off the mark. Get your head out of your ass and think for five seconds about what you post.
In the end, there is only two conditions on war.
A) ONE SHOULD NEVER START ANY WAR. That's right, it means you should not do it? Why, because you would commit the act of aggression which is immoral for a myriad of reasons.
B) IF WAR IS DONE ONTO YOU, YOU SHOULD PROSECUTE A DEFENSE TO ITS FULLEST WITH NO LIMITS WHAT SO EVER. Yep, that's what I've been driving home here and you seem to be the fucking moronic dickhead that can't get a grip on that. You want defenders to act like, "Please let me live" and whatever. Guess what? Fuck your opinion on it. Why? Because if you even have the basic understanding of my points you would not be making such stupid claims to begin with.
Btw, I know you're the only one giving me - karma, so fuck off and die, jack ass!
-- Bridget