A problem in the Military ?

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.

IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has to
do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .

Steve Swartz


I hesitate to reply to this because I'm afraid of losing my
control and telling you what I _really_ think.

However, I'll try. I could start by finding out why you
apparently think so little of 'natural instincts'.
--

-Gord.

Gord (and those still following the thread):

Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that

"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"

is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
will.

That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
rationalize bad behavior.

Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
discarded lightly.

With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?

And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
the wind, after all.

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Yes, Gord- but it is also "human nature" to believe in Demons and Spirits
and Magic and Dragons and Faeries and the like as well.

IMNSHO, a key part of being human (as opposed to a lower life form) has
to
do with moving beyond our "natural instincts" to something better . . .

Steve Swartz


I hesitate to reply to this because I'm afraid of losing my
control and telling you what I _really_ think.

However, I'll try. I could start by finding out why you
apparently think so little of 'natural instincts'.
--

-Gord.

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Gord (and those still following the thread):
Simply put, I think any conclusion based on the proposition that
"We have to accept behavior A because it is the result of 'human nature'"
is weak reasoning, because it presupposes our inability to exercise free
will.

Not at all...but neither should it be 'rejected' for that reason
either. I think we should look at it, remembering that it's human
nature, then select or reject it but keeping in mind that it *is*
human nature.

That's the rational basis for rejecting the argument. The personal basis
for rejecting it comes from the experience of hearing the argument raised
over and over again, generally as an excuse to turn a blind eye to and/or
rationalize bad behavior.

Using "human nature" as an excuse to accept bad behavior, taken to it's
logical conclusion, results in the loss of something we have come to know as
"Civilization." This thing called "Civilization" is a burden not to be
discarded lightly.

Of course not...most of the conditions that make up 'civilized
behavior' are indeed 'human nature'.

With respect to sexual relations between military members, involving
infidelity or not, chain of command or not- there is plenty of ill and no
good to come from such behavior. So just because doing the right thing is
"hard," we should not demand it of ourselves and others?


Depends on whether it really is 'the right thing' eh?


And go ahead Gord- respond with both barrels. The tallest trees catch all
the wind, after all.


Don't be silly Steve...I'd much rather debate it than fight,
wouldn't you?.

Steve Swartz



--

-Gord.