(September 21, 2013 at 7:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(September 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm)Koolay Wrote: We should not, because morality has to be universal in order to be valid. You can not say a certain group of people have opposite rules of morality to another group of people as you can say math changes depending on what day it is.Sure you can. It is moral to let people function freely who seem unlikely to do others harm. It is immoral to let confirmed murderes do the same.
If you are engaged in a war, it is moral to kill enemy soldiers. It is (usually) immoral to kill civilians, or anyone on your own side.
Let's talk about that for a second. If you are in a war, it is moral to kill enemy soldiers?
Granted I think it's moral for someone to defend yourself from physical harm even if you have to kill someone. So if you were face to face with an enemy soldier and they were trying to shoot you then yeah it would be moral to kill them.
But what blurs the lines is the notion of war. Today war is declared not by soldiers themselves but by people above them in the hierarchy. Those people are the ones who declare war and they are the ones who decide who or what your enemy is. Now assuming that they are human beings they are by default not infallible.
So if you depend SOLELY on their word that a certain person or group is an enemy it may not be moral.
