|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
strategy & philosophy
jastayme3
5/15/2004 2:11:33 PM
|
Strategy is facinating. It encourages my desire for competition and my love of intricacy. It is also about doing others harm. It is about being "sent abroad to lie for your country"(a not unapt discription of the duties of a diplomat). It is also about protecting others from those who would do them harm. In short it is a craft for which I have a strange mixture of facination and repulsion.
But how does morality fit in with strategy? An extreme realist would say that it doesn't and all is permitted. An extreme idealist would similarly say that it doesn't but would essentially say that nothing is permitted.
Now of course I fall between these two lines. If I was a pacifist(or extreme idealist) I would logically have to say that this page is pornagraphic. But as I am not so extreme I can say strategy is a legitimate study and I enjoy it.
However again I have to ask what is permitted? As a Christian I must be guided by my faith; those that aren't Christians I ask only that you "suspend your disbelief"(as an old cliche goes) long enough to think about this.
First one must ask,"what is a Christian ruler to do". By "Ruler" I mean anyone with high enough authority to have more than an academic concern with the subject at hand. This would certainly include democratic statesmen as well as autocrats.
First he must do God's will. But God seldom reveals his will in a manner that is absoulutely impossible to doubt. I don't believe this is theoretically impossible-just unlikly. Which is one reason(besides my natural cynicism)why I tend to dismiss those who claim such revealation as frauds or madmen. And of course I wouldn't want such in high office(GWB is no exception; he is enthusiastic about his faith, as his sect encourages-I have never heard him claim that everything he did was a direct command from God.
Next comes the claims of "justice" and "prudence". Or "What should be done" and "what can be done"(this is a very, very, rough definition-just ask a local cleric who has interest in such things if you want it more exact). Or he must love the Lord his God and Love his neighbor as himself.
But a "ruler" must negotiate the claims of millions of "neighbors". Naturally the first claim is God, which can be interpreted as the claim of morality. Thus it is immoral to break a treaty: that is perjury.
Then are the claims of his own people: it is his specific job to protect them.
Then to a greater or lesser degree depending on the situation are the claims of foreigners
Within each of the last two claims, the claims of governtment officials, especially military personal come after the claims of ordinary citizens. Why? Because a soldier(marine, sailor, airman, intell whatever) is taking pay to protect others. He has accepted the responsibilty for that action. An ordinary citizen is being an ordinary citizen.
Now how does this apply to various hard decisions. Well it is hard to draw the line. Let me give an example. I don't think it would be immoral to pickpocket papers from a official of a rival power(unless one has promised not to do so, an action which no state would seriously do). Why? Because I think that would fall under what might be called the "penumbra" of the concept "war"-it would be just like capturing a ship. I do think it would be immoral to blackmail an innocent person into spying for you. Does the line seem arbitrary? Perhaps it is. Which is why we need more wisdom. I am sure of one thing though. Though some ends justify some means, no end justifies all means. There are some things which we must not do even though the lives of millions depend on it. What are these things? I don't know. And many more wise than I have struggled with that question. Which I leave unanswered still. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
