I mean, war is a trivial counter-example. You're intentionally killing people.
There's two ways to go about it. Either you ignore the rules whenever they start getting in the way, or you build huge subjective holes into them.
There's two ways to go about it. Either you ignore the rules whenever they start getting in the way, or you build huge subjective holes into them.
> [Truman administration head of Joint Chiefs, General Omar] Bradley accused the Navy of being in “open rebellion” against the civilian leadership of the United States. The admirals were “Fancy Dans” and “aspiring martyrs” who just didn’t like to take orders. As for the accusation that [an “atomic blitz“] targeting [seventy] cities [hosting a plurality of the Soviet population] was immoral, Bradley responded, “As far as I am concerned, war itself is immoral.”
I can’t model or even try to imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to just stop at this—as opposed to continuing to “therefore we should not engage in it”, which is of course refuted by that (supposedly) being even more immoral, which in turn breaks the original assumption that all immoral things are equally bad.
Put it this way: If your friend asks you for advice on how to set up his wedding website, which of the following is good advice?
A) Use Squarespace.
B) Write an HTML & CSS file and put it on github pages.
C) Use Netlify.
D) Set up a multi-region kubernetes cluster with enough storage and capacity to stream the World Cup.
You can be required to do things because of external forces that intentionally break the “moral rules” of normal society.
It can be morally wrong to kill a man, but you can still have to do it to defend yourself to survive.