Morality and the Constitution

[AENeuman]

Thought the assignment I gave my honors government seniors might be of interest here.

After watching “Fog of War” they have to discuss how the moral ideals of the Constitution have permitted or even promoted immoral acts. The focus is only on foreign policy and not personal morals.

What I want specifically want them to address is justification. How it is ok to fire bomb 100, 000 Japanese but not Vietnamese. How an American life is worth more than an Iraqi. Moreover, does the policy “in order to achieve good, one must engage in evil” show the strength or the weakness in the Constitution.

I was amazed a few weeks ago when all my students said that after many years of struggle (mistakes) the ideals of the Constitution are being achieved today. I hope to show them the dangers of relativism the Constitution allows. That the ideals are meaningless until they are acted upon, by affirming or denying them.

[Ryche]

[quote=AENeuman]
What I want specifically want them to address is justification. How it is ok to fire bomb 100, 000 Japanese but not Vietnamese. How an American life is worth more than an Iraqi. Moreover, does the policy “in order to achieve good, one must engage in evil” show the strength or the weakness in the Constitution.

QUOTE]

A quick and easy (although not necessarily correct) answer to bombing Japanese vs. Vietnamese would be that we fought Japan out of self defense while we fought in Vietnam out of self interest.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ryche

A quick and easy (although not necessarily correct) answer to bombing Japanese vs. Vietnamese would be that we fought Japan out of self defense while we fought in Vietnam out of self interest.

Agreed. It seems like "provide for the common defense" would be a key aspect of the discussion.

Of course, there's also the discussion about how the Japanese military industry was spread out through their cities (almost a cottage war production), making much of the city a legitimate military target (many of the firebombed homes were producing parts for the factories). A better example might be firebombing Dresden vs. Vietnam.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I hope to show them the dangers of relativism the Constitution allows.

Or perhaps they'll show you that occasional relativism is one of the strengths of the Constitution

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed. It seems like "provide for the common defense" would be a key aspect of the discussion.

Of course, there's also the discussion about how the Japanese military industry was spread out through their cities (almost a cottage war production), making much of the city a legitimate military target (many of the firebombed homes were producing parts for the factories). A better example might be firebombing Dresden vs. Vietnam.

Our constitution dosn't cover the British.
We didn't firebomb Dresden.

I think the key point is in considering civilian casualties as acceptable.

[Desnudo]

[quote=Ryche]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

What I want specifically want them to address is justification. How it is ok to fire bomb 100, 000 Japanese but not Vietnamese. How an American life is worth more than an Iraqi. Moreover, does the policy “in order to achieve good, one must engage in evil” show the strength or the weakness in the Constitution.

QUOTE]

A quick and easy (although not necessarily correct) answer to bombing Japanese vs. Vietnamese would be that we fought Japan out of self defense while we fought in Vietnam out of self interest.

Additionally, firebombing say, Hanoi, could have resulted in WWW III.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Surtt

We didn't firebomb Dresden.

You're nitpicking. For the purposes of this discussion, sure we did.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

You're nitpicking. For the purposes of this discussion, sure we did.

Eisenhower was supreme allied commander, I believe. I don't really understand how the Constitution applies to any of this, though.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Eisenhower was supreme allied commander, I believe. I don't really understand how the Constitution applies to any of this, though.

I agree--don't think that the Constitution really applies to activities outside the US.

Morality and war is an interesting topic though. I would recommend Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars", if you haven't already read it...

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I'm not really sure how the Constitution applies to those conflicts as well. On the other hand, Jim Crow stuff and the Constitution may be interesting to explore (ie, seperate but equal can work under the 14th Amendment, but as we all know, it was not even close to equal, but what if it was?)

[st.cronin]

I could see a discussion where you postulate that American morality is based on the Constitution - and then ask if that morality is betrayed by various acts of war. I just think that's way too technical a question, and I don't think American morality is Constitution-centered.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

You're nitpicking. For the purposes of this discussion, sure we did.

How so?

In Europe, where we had factories we could target. we did so.
We bombed in daylight and targeted individual factories.
It was not our policy to drop firebombs in Europe.

The British, bombing at night, could not hope to it a factor, so they turned to firebombing.
You can not blame us for their tactics.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I agree--don't think that the Constitution really applies to activities outside the US.

Obviously the laws do not apply to other countries. However, why don’t the ideals? If the Cons’t is the protection of our basic rights, and the Declaration of Independence is correct in that those rights are fundamental to all humans, why is ok to violate those rights of other, non-Americans?

I know the Declaration of Independence is not law, but its ideals are the compass that guided the Constitution.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Surtt

How so?

In Europe, where we had factories we could target. we did so.
We bombed in daylight and targeted individual factories.
It was not our policy to drop firebombs in Europe.

The British, bombing at night, could not hope to it a factor, so they turned to firebombing.
You can not blame us for their tactics.

The USAF did indeed drop incendiary bombs in Europe, including on Dresden.
But I believe your alluding to the fact that the US did not conduct area bombing (such as the Brits at Dresden) as opposed to bombing specific industrial or military targets. Which I concur with; however, my contention was that you were singling out the night fire-bomb element from Dresden as if that somehow exempts the US from what we did during our daylight raids, which is bomb the bejesus out of Dresden and other cities. Is the argument about targeting? Types of bombs? Strategic bombing in general?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Obviously the laws do not apply to other countries. However, why don’t the ideals? If the Cons’t is the protection of our basic rights, and the Declaration of Independence is correct in that those rights are fundamental to all humans, why is ok to violate those rights of other, non-Americans?

I know the Declaration of Independence is not law, but its ideals are the compass that guided the Constitution.

The Declaration declares the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but the Constitution only talks about liberty, and in the Bill of Rights. I mean there is no right to life in the Constitution.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Obviously the laws do not apply to other countries. However, why don’t the ideals? If the Cons’t is the protection of our basic rights, and the Declaration of Independence is correct in that those rights are fundamental to all humans, why is ok to violate those rights of other, non-Americans?

I know the Declaration of Independence is not law, but its ideals are the compass that guided the Constitution.

Somewhere in all this, I'm not getting the impression that you're accounting for differing ideals between the authors of the Constitution & Americans overall over the various eras spanned by the events you mention. Or maybe that's the point you're trying to make to the students & I'm just slow on the uptake?

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

The USAF did indeed drop incendiary bombs in Europe, including on Dresden.
But I believe your alluding to the fact that the US did not conduct area bombing (such as the Brits at Dresden) as opposed to bombing specific industrial or military targets. Which I concur with; however, my contention was that you were singling out the night fire-bomb element from Dresden as if that somehow exempts the US from what we did during our daylight raids, which is bomb the bejesus out of Dresden and other cities. Is the argument about targeting? Types of bombs? Strategic bombing in general?

I agree, That is what I meant about civilian casualties.

The issue isn't fire bombing,
it is bombing civilians, or bombing where there is a high likelihood of civilian casualties.

I only reason I commented about Dresden was because I didn't think it was valid, as suggested above, to use the example of firebombing Dresden vs. Vietnam. We did not firebomb Dresden.

[WVUFAN]

The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of Americans, not people of other countries.

It's an "unpopular" opinion, but I could not care less for the lives of those in Iraq, or any other country we're involved in. 1000 Iraqi lives do not equal 1 American.

[Buccaneer]

bro, I told you there would be those interested in this discussion, but I should have warned you on citing specific examples.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of Americans, not people of other countries.

It's an "unpopular" opinion, but I could not care less for the lives of those in Iraq, or any other country we're involved in. 1000 Iraqi lives do not equal 1 American.

I agree wholeheartedly. That may make me a bad person in the eyes of some of the people here, but I seem to be on a few people's shit list these days anyway - at least now those people have a reason to put me there

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, it does make you a bad person .

Though if you are a Christian, it makes you a bad Christian as well .

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though if you are a Christian, it makes you a bad Christian as well .

At least I'll have a good tan in hell, and besides, red is my signature color.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes, it does make you a bad person .

Though if you are a Christian, it makes you a bad Christian as well .

Then I'm a bad person. I'm rather tired of Americans being bullied into sending billions of dollars to help people in Asia recover from a Monsoon, when we completely ignore homeless on the street in the US. I'm tired of commercials calling for money for kids in other countries when we have kids in THIS country that needs help.

I'm tired of people quoting XX Iraqi lives lost when we ignore the AMERICAN soldiers dying over there. Our priority in this country is to serve the people OF THIS COUNTRY. Everyone else comes a far second.

Again, if that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I already said you are a bad person. I don't need more proof .

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Then I'm a bad person. I'm rather tired of Americans being bullied into sending billions of dollars to help people in Asia recover from a Monsoon, when we completely ignore homeless on the street in the US. I'm tired of commercials calling for money for kids in other countries when we have kids in THIS country that needs help.

I'm tired of people quoting XX Iraqi lives lost when we ignore the AMERICAN soldiers dying over there. Our priority in this country is to serve the people OF THIS COUNTRY. Everyone else comes a far second.

Again, if that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad person.

See ya in hell...just you, me and Saddam Hussein Think of all the fun we'll have!!!!!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

At least I'll have a good tan in hell, and besides, red is my signature color.

Bodes well for you then .

Just watch out for that evil Saddam Hussein (I don't care what the newspapers say, South Park has shown me Saddam is with Satan).

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Our priority in this country is to serve the people OF THIS COUNTRY. Everyone else comes a far second.

I bet it goes even deeper than that. You, your family, friends, would be first, then maybe Americans.

My point is that the ideals which this country was suppposed to be based on is far from reality. Despite the good intentions of the founders you still believe what you do. Moreover, despite the good intentions of the founders themselves they still did what they did. Same can be said for religious ideals.

The question I asked my students was, what then? Should we stop pretending? Should we admit that humans are really evil in nature?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Should we admit that humans are really partially evil in nature?

Small fix! Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I bet it goes even deeper than that. You, your family, friends, would be first, then maybe Americans.

My point is that the ideals which this country was suppposed to be based on is far from reality. Despite the good intentions of the founders you still believe what you do. Moreover, despite the good intentions of the founders themselves they still did what they did. Same can be said for religious ideals.

The question I asked my students was, what then? Should we stop pretending? Should we admit that humans are really evil in nature?

Well, there's a difference between MY priorities and what the nation's priorities should be. Obviously my priorities lies with my family and friends, but I am of the opinion that the nation simply does not have the nation's interest at heart.

I'm not sure if my isolationist viewpoint begats an evil opinion, but rather one that concentrates on the people who pay into the system and those who were born or chose to be a part of the system, nor do I believe this is counter to the intentions of the founding fathers. I DO NOT think the founding fathers, when creating the Constitution, was thinking of applying those same rights to any citizen of England or France, but rather exclusively for those that chose to be Americans, and the same message should apply today.

I'm not saying we should keep a blind eye to suffering in other countries, but rather our attention should be solely on suffering within our own ranks. Once our own problems are solved, then, and only then should we look elsewhere to help, but I believe it's counter to the spirit of the founding fathers and the Constitution to ignore Americans to help others abroad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Should we admit that humans are really evil in nature?

Maybe just a matter of semantics but ...
does "imperfect" really = "evil"?
does "capable of evil" = "evil"?

Just tossing something into the hopper for consideration.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I DO NOT think the founding fathers, when creating the Constitution, was thinking of applying those same rights to any citizen of England or France, but rather exclusively for those that chose to be Americans, and the same message should apply today.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also FWIW, the founding fathers didn't have the strict delineation between Britons and Americans often imprinted retroactively, they considered themselves to be both.

And yes I know the differnce between the American Decleration of Independance and the US Constitution. But then part of the story is how the idealism and (for want of a better word) progressiveness of the original impetus behind independance is diluted over time, most dramatically in the few years between that seperation and the constitution.

[Riggins44]

There have been no "constitutional" wars since WWII. Congress has not declared war since then. All of these skirmishes have been allowed based on some international law/treaty or government (ie. the UN for most, SEATO for Vietnam). The constitution has not promoted these illegal wars... our elected officials have found backdoors into these quagmires. It's our fault for not holding them accountable.

As for Morality - I believe there are some that are out to get religion by stripping god out of everything... and for a reason. Once you eliminate god, morality is molded more by man and the whims of society. I think this has been achieved for the most part already.

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm not sure if my isolationist viewpoint begats an evil opinion, but rather one that concentrates on the people who pay into the system and those who were born or chose to be a part of the system, nor do I believe this is counter to the intentions of the founding fathers.

If it is an evil opinion, you're in good company.

Some cool quotes from George:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. -George Washington

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force...Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. -George Washington

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. -George Washington

[Buccaneer]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
- George Washington

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington's farewell address, 1796


and a future quote looking back to the time of Washington:

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens."
- Daniel Webster

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
- George Washington

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington's farewell address, 1796


and a future quote looking back to the time of Washington:

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens."
- Daniel Webster

Makes you wonder why our wonderous Supreme Court mandated that the intent of the Constitution's Establishment Clause was of a Division of Church and State. These quotes seem to indicate the opposite.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, last I heard Jefferson was a founder as well .

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

[Bubba Wheels]

Regarding the foreign policy part, Pat's way is the right way:http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48069

I would not even defend Canada. Why should we? Let them buy their own defense, as the rest of the world should. Said it before and stand by it, why should we spend millions of dollars to defend Japan and South Korea so that they are free to spend their own money subsidizing their auto industries to then sell their cars over here? Makes no sense, and many are starting to catch on. What's old is new again, we should butt out and let the world fend for themselves.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, last I heard Jefferson was a founder as well .

Quite true. As I understand it, he lost out on the wording of that particular clause. It was his opinion that there should be a wall between church and state. That specific sentiment didn't make it into the text that passed the muster of the other signers. He can after the fact declare his opinion to his heart's content, but that isn't what the amendment says.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Regarding the foreign policy part, Pat's way is the right way:http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48069

I would not even defend Canada. Why should we? Let them buy their own defense, as the rest of the world should. Said it before and stand by it, why should we spend millions of dollars to defend Japan and South Korea so that they are free to spend their own money subsidizing their auto industries to then sell their cars over here? Makes no sense, and many are starting to catch on. What's old is new again, we should butt out and let the world fend for themselves.

I've said it before: The recurring theme of US History (and the history of all great civilizations) is that isolationsim never goes unpunished.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I've said it before: The recurring theme of US History (and the history of all great civilizations) is that isolationsim never goes unpunished.

Buchanan has made a case before that even getting involved in WW2 was avoidable. He doesn't say it was a mistake, but an interesting 'alternative history' possibility that tends to be different than the set-in-stone consensus most fall right into line with.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I've said it before: The recurring theme of US History (and the history of all great civilizations) is that isolationsim never goes unpunished.

I'd be curious to see where you've said this before and your thoughts on it. Frankly, I lean a bit isolationist but it's not a particularly strong leaning. Heck, I'd be curious to see a thread about yours (or anyone else's) thoughts.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Buchanan has made a case before that even getting involved in WW2 was avoidable. He doesn't say it was a mistake, but an interesting 'alternative history' possibility that tends to be different than the set-in-stone consensus most fall right into line with.

Sure. He'd worked with the Nazi's.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Buchanan has made a case before that even getting involved in WW2 was avoidable. He doesn't say it was a mistake, but an interesting 'alternative history' possibility that tends to be different than the set-in-stone consensus most fall right into line with.

Unless we had surrendered to the Japanese sometime after December 7, I don't see how we could have avoided that particular melee.

[sterlingice]

It's scary, I know he's pretty much been slimed to oblivion after making stupid statements, but I do find myself agreeing with a decent amount of stuff Buchanan says. If only he could get rid of that pesky "crazy streak".

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sure. He'd worked with the Nazi's.

Well, if you check your history you'll find that the most prominent U.S. politician that was coziest with the Nazis right before WW2 was liberal icon Teddy Kennedy's father Ambassador Joseph Kennedy.

But calling conservatives like Buchanan 'nazi' is always a good cheap shot taken by liberals because the media never calls them on it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Unless we had surrendered to the Japanese sometime after December 7, I don't see how we could have avoided that particular melee.

The over-simple answer is that Japan attacked us because we cut-off their supply of iron with sanctions because Japan had invaded Manchuria. Japan saw our Pacific fleet as a threat to their wanting to create a 'sphere-of-influence' in the Pacific so they could hunt raw materials that their island doesn't have. So you could argue had we handled this differently they would not have saw the need to attack us. Just food-for-thought on the subject.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, if you check your history you'll find that the most prominent U.S. politician that was coziest with the Nazis right before WW2 was liberal icon Teddy Kennedy's father Ambassador Joseph Kennedy.

And that makes it right?

But calling conservatives like Buchanan 'nazi' is always a good cheap shot taken by liberals because the media never calls them on it.

Or becuase it hits close to the mark.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And that makes it right?



Or becuase it hits close to the mark.

Well, since you insist on making the charge please tell just how exactly is Mr. Buchanan a 'nazi' according to your information?

Because Buchanan's being for limited government overall makes it kind of hard to follow the historical Nazi model of using a large, centralized government to force its will onto the populance with the mandate that 'everything belongs to the state and the state owns everything!" That makes Nazism sound much more like liberalism in my book. National Socialist Worker's Party?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, since you insist on making the charge please tell just how exactly is Mr. Buchanan a 'nazi' according to your information?

Because Buchanan's being for limited government overall makes it kind of hard to follow the historical Nazi model of using a large, centralized government to force its will onto the populance with the mandate that 'everything belongs to the state and the state owns everything!" That makes Nazism sound much more like liberalism in my book. National Socialist Worker's Party?

I didn't say he was a Nazi.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, if you check your history you'll find that the most prominent U.S. politician that was coziest with the Nazis right before WW2 was liberal icon Teddy Kennedy's father Ambassador Joseph Kennedy.

And someone just as close to the Nazis was GHWB's father and our current prez's grandfather. What point were you trying to make with this association?