From Wikileaks

[edit] I am confused

So, is what you are saying that from a point of view of morality, it is perfectly acceptable for our enemies to hide behind innocent civilians and we never attempt to retaliate or eliminate them, because we will never kill innocents (collateral damage)? Is that the point you are trying to make? That a truly moral government would never allow an innocent to be killed? Does it not then logically follow that a country that follows this ideology could be held hostage as an entire country, simply by one person willing to kill, or threaten to kill, some innocent? So, countries of high moral fiber could easily be manipulated by individual psychopaths? Does this seem wise to you?

Should we presume that all people running countries are equally 'good' then it must be individual psychopaths that are willing to perform the heinous acts that have been performed. Is my logic flawed? If so, please point out the flaw.

If we read Machiavelli, we learn that once one becomes responsible for a country, one must re-evaluate ones view of morality. Countries can not be of as high moral fiber as the individuals that make them up...

In future you may want to consider the logical results of your arguments prior to submitting them... it appears your earlier thesis was not completely expanded.

[edit] feedback

I would have appreciated it if you'd begun with a concise summary of the document's contents and its significance.

[edit] Same paint, different picture

It seems to me you're saying that individuals should exercise their personal morality over collective state morality. I would agree with you, except there are many different contexts where we agree to defer our individual morality to the state, group, or other 'abstraction', as you put it (individuals are also an 'abstraction'). In the case of a soldier following rules of engagement, that deferral takes place at the start of a military career, and continues until discharged. The soldier has decided that a greater moral good can only be achieved by putting their individualism aside temporarily.

For a civilian born into the state we accept that we are not truely individual but are part of a group, and that our personal morality is really 'cultural', having been mostly learned from the 'abstract' group. This is not to say that we should simply accept things as they are. We must always be critical and progressive and be able to share our ideas. There is no progress without conflict.

The most intolerable scenario is that which occurs when individual morality subverts group morality. This is what leads to war in the first place.