In the past 60+ years nobody has been foolish enough to attack America!!! In fact, all of the wars America has ever been engaged in LATELY have been fought abroad -- in other countries...
There's never been a compulsary draft -- only voluntary!!!
(except of Vietnam, of course. Even then, there were many draft-dodgers, who NOW appear as the ones who used their heads...***)

*** The only reason you joined the Army has been either because you've been young and idealistic (and fell for the government's propaganda), or
because you had nothing better to apply yourself to... -- AS YOU SAID: <-- at least, you admit it!
*** BUT DON'T FEED ME WITH THE PATRIOTIC BS, please!!! ***
________________________________________THUS________________________________________
MY POINT REMAINS UNCONTESTED:
IN "EXREME" SITUATIONS, that same Primary Instinct (i.e.Ultimate Survival) might (and most probably WILL) force YOU to kill another Human Being! * * * * * * * * * *
In a real "Life or Death" situation -- when both cannot survive, but only ONE of you -- all of the hypothetical values of morality and ethics WILL suddenly disappear from your head, as if you've never heard of them...

When the question concerns the Primary Instinct (i.e."Ultimate Survival"), WHO CARES ABOUT the ethics, morals, schmorals???...

O contested most definately.

I joined for the reasons I stated...

I had options... Good ole boy connections and all that to a career.

*** Darling, thank you very much for confirming my idea! ***
Clearly, since you had options and connections ("and all that to a career.."), YOU USED THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE YOUR PERSONAL GOAL! Patriotic ideals have never figured in your reason for joining!!!
... Talking about the ethics, morals, schmorals (or your so-called Love for America)???

P.S.
MY POINT REMAINS UNCONTESTED:
IN "EXREME" SITUATIONS, that same Primary Instinct (i.e.Ultimate Survival) might (and most probably WILL) force YOU to kill another Human Being! * * * * * * * * * *
In a real "Life or Death" situation -- when both cannot survive, but only ONE of you -- all of the hypothetical values of morality and ethics WILL suddenly disappear from your head, as if you never heard of them...

When the question concerns the Primary Instinct (i.e."Ultimate Survuval"), WHO CARES ABOUT the ethics, morals, schmorals???...

Sorry Jane. You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

There has been conscription in the US military since the Revolutionary War. However, my examples were strictly limited to WWII and Vietnam.

But, since everything that I say seems to be contradicted without evidence the only prudent course of action that remains for me is to back out of this thread.

But before I go, I will take the liberty to interpret Adventure's answer for you since you seem to have misunderstood.

He stated:


Meaning that he joined the military for the reasons that he stated. He had options available to him had he chosen NOT to join the military. Those options were available to him through his connections and would have allowed him a lucrative career.

Sky:

...Coupled together with the definition of the "Optimum Survival" -- as one's ability of attaining one's goals(!) -- you effectively PROVED your point!!! Bravo...

I recognize the signature of a great Programmer:
i.e. limiting the scope of the variable, by making it "local" -- instead of a "global"...

I have to disagree.

What about a mother who sacrifices her own life so that her offspring can live? That is most certainly considered moral behavior by most societies on earth today.

IBYP, dear, but your quitting the threat may not be because of my contradicting you! If you read my post carefully, you'd see me stating -- referring to the past 60 years):

I never thought about it quite like that myself. I guess 25 years in the profession would tend to affect the way one thinks on a very fundamental level. Or maybe it's the other way around and the way I think is what makes me such a good programmer. I dunno.

Thanx, dear, your absolutely right -- I'm wrong!
But I cannot comprehend What -- except of falling for the false propaganda, and being foolishly idealistic -- could possess a young man forsake his future (i.e.career, health, etc.) ? ? ?
(Again, I DO NOT ACCEPT HIS PATRIOTIZM AS AN EXPLANATION!!! -- miserable Vietnam posed NO FaCKING THREAT TO THE USA! * * * * *

Allow me to quote you completely.


Your first sentence is irrelevant. It matters not if we were attacked or not, we went to war (splitting semantic hairs over "conflict" or "war" is meaningless in this context).

Your second sentence admits that America has been in multiple wars "LATELY". Then you say America has never had a draft EXCEPT for Vietnam.

Had you read the article referenced, you would have recognized that from 1776 until 1973 the United States engaged in conscription at various times.

AND... (please read this part carefully)

Between 1940 and 1973 there was a draft in America whether or not there was a war.

I freely admit that your abuse of sentence structure and punctuation makes it difficult to understand your ideas; but I do give you the benefit of the doubt and try to make sure I understand exactly what you are writing.

Unfortunately, you have no such respect for the other writers in this thread. You use rants and insults in place of argument. Your concern is only to appear superior instead of understanding the issues presented from another's perspective.

And so, I have decided that instead of spending all my time trying to clarify the deliberate mischaracterizations and ill mannered dogma that you liter the thread with; I would simply allow you to play alone in the feces you have so amply cover the walls with.

Certainly, there's no time, in our daily life, for thinking in terms of a program... Though, when I read your explanation, I observed the similarity right away:

Yeah, you have a great Debugging technique -- that really is an UNDECLARED VARIABLE!!! * * *

Apparantly, my function works only for the folks who aren't tied with no relative ties! (AND I DON'T MEAN TO IMPLY ANY "RELATIVITY"! ) -- *** NOT RELATED ***

Sky, you caught me on some unprecisely and illogically worded text in my post on ethics.

I said something about choices? or that ethical/moral actions are genetically encoded in our brains? And that's why we can't see people taken apart to help others survive, because it's an impossible thing to happen in any set of circumstance in history. No paradigm, no ingrained instinctual moral reaction.

Here's one example of no choice. The mother does not even think of saving her own life when sacrificing hers would mean saving her baby's.

I think it's more an instinct, a knee-jerk reaction, than a matter of choices. Morality is.

Just my opinion, and here I wanted to show only the rigid no-choice forced reaction. I think it is possible that a female cat risks her life to save her kittens from a fire for the same emotional trigger: It is an unquestioned reaction, heroic, and cats see that too. Also they feel right about it when they do it. They don't do it because it's and instinct any more than humans. This I can't prove, but I strongly believe that this is how it is.

I realize I'm still a long way from proving or at least showing convincingly that a healthy man is not taken apart to make five live who need organs because we don't have a moral paradigm for it.

At least we have some form of control over ourselves. I have yet to see an environment that controls itself in the same way: It stop a hurricane or an avalanche from forming, despite all physical prerequisites are present. Or the environment controls itself and does not let a volcano eruption or a heat wave or a cold wave or a pleasant wave to be any more significant than the death of a salesman.

I agree that we can barely control ourselves, but it's not an argument, because we're still the species with the second best self-control, right after German Sheppperds.

"Patriotic ideals have never figured in your reason for joining!!!
... Talking about the ethics, morals, schmorals (or your so-called Love for America)??? "

You are not me.

You know not who I am.

You can not state with any degree of certanity what my motivations and thoughts are.

Pray you are never in such 'extreme' circumstances... If you survive you might not be sure you really know you.

Differentiating “instinct” from “morals” has always been a slippery problem. Especially since the two are so vaguely defined in most cases.

However, I will say that I don’t think an action in which one truly does not have a choice could be considered either moral or immoral. If one is forced to do something against their will, could they be said to have acted either morally or immorally? In fact, could they really have been said to have acted at all? Is not the real action that of the forcer, not the forcee?

Example: A person is hypnotized and told to kill someone else. If they do so, could they be said to have acted immorally?

This is why I define morals in terms of choices, not actions. Because it is the choices that give rise to the actions. In the hypnosis example, the immorality was on the part of the hypnotist, not the hypnotic. The hypnotic had no choice.

Fusion,

I hope you know that none of your comments 'killed the conversation', as you seemed to anticipate. My main interest was exploring the implications of the word 'meant' in the context of choice and predestination, and while I'm still not sure I completely understand your view, I have a better understand than I did before - and for that I appreciate your posts.

********* Thank you, Wux **********************

**************** Sky, although I was thrown off balance by your question regarding a mother's sacrificial behavior, but thanx to wux's point -- differentiating between instincts and choices -- I FEEL REDEEMED ! ! !