On Subjectivity and the “Moral High Ground”

This post was inspired by this comment thread. I see some understandable points, and I see that “Moral High Ground” theme again. Readers might remember some of my thoughts on the subject.

Some of the comments were centered on murder vs. killing, and maintaining the highly subjective and vulnerable-to-indirect-fire (metaphoric and real) “moral high ground”. It sparked some thoughts on my part, and I am posting them here for consideration. I don't want to address the act of ending a life (in war or peace) as much as I want to look at the interpretation of action(s).

If a person or nation is in a fight worth fighting, which is in most cases, a fight for survival or for the conditions that will allow it, that person or nation must win. There is no choice in such a case. Undertaking a “moral” (if you will allow me to use the term here) fight implies that the outcome of not fighting is unacceptable, immoral, unlivable. Losing means death, slavery, or severe suffering. A win is the only acceptable outcome in a fight worth fighting. The only “moral” outcome, one might say. It follows logically then that any means that contributes directly to a win is acceptable, while means that do not contribute to, or hinder, a moral outcome are unacceptable, or “immoral”. My purpose is not to start an ends / means debate, but to illustrate that in this case, losing means it does not matter anymore.

Obviously my criteria for “fights worth fighting” would exclude petty social violence, “small wars” of intervention, “peacekeeping” police-type conflicts, etc. Morality becomes more difficult in these situations, and for a reason. This is because they are, almost without exception, not worth fighting.

But let us consider history, the past as seen through the lens of the present. History, being the past, in the context of present power, culture, and society. Perspective.

MORE