you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]duble_tappin 4 points5 points


please explain..

[–]Yakooza1 6 points7 points


Honor is merely an abstract concept denoting someone's worthiness and societal respect. It can determine someones social standing and self-evaluation. For this reason, its very subjective and a strong motivational tool for individuals. It is not at all based on ethics but rather cultural standards. For example, in Islamic cultures, even women having pre-marital sex violates the codes of honor. In the US people would even defend their "honor" (even merely being insulted) to the death by dueling to the death, placing more importance on it than their families, jobs, or their own life.

"Serving your country" isn't any different of an abstract make belief value that people place so great importance on, not because of ethical concerns, but rather of outdated nationalist sentiments. Kings could get hundreds of thousands of men to die for them in battle? Why? Because those in power were able to make the whole existence of warfare seem legitimate (as well as the class structure which allowed them to hold such power). A further consequence was making it seem like dying on the battlefield was an honorable duty. It offers people the illusion that they are getting something out of the imperialist interests of the country they serve, even if the reality is nothing but death. Deserters are labeled as cowards and the whole masculinity of men is shunned for not being "brave" enough to go die. In WW1, the British government even started a campaign to shame men into serving by having women hand them white feathers if they did not.. It also offers family members the ability to grieve the death of their son/brother, etc better because even though there was absolutely no reason for Tommy to go to Nicaragua, leave his child and wife behind, and die, its somehow made better because it was "honorable".

But is there actually any rational reasons as to how leaving your family and job to go and potentially die in battle for the ever so perpetual cycle of land grabbing would be considered ethical? What is this attitude based on if not feudal values of nationalism, the traditional gender roles, and all such outdated things which should no longer even be taken seriously?

You can damn me to hell if in the future if the idea that you have some spiritual connection to a government because of the geographical land you were born on isn't considered being something as stupid and outdated as racism.

I think its obvious why it exists, but I can't believe anyone defends its right to exist in this day and age. Why can soldiers now go and risk their lives and that of others without even having a hint of understanding of the conflict that they're furthering, and yet be praised for it?

[–]duble_tappin 0 points1 point


Wow, didn't expect that. I don't necessarily agree with you but I do see your point of view. The white feather campaign is really quite interesting thanks for a teaching me something new for the day.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points


I would guess (and I'm playing devils advocate here, so don't take it out on me), that he is against what the US is doing around the world; he probably views what are arguably minor atrocities committed by the US army as attributable to the service members as they are to the government.

In short, the Armed Services are killing innocents and stirring trouble all around the world, and deserve no praise. Or I'm completely missing his point.