Pericles, thank-you so much for proving my point! Perhaps I should have added a paragraph about the tendency of readers to totally disregard parts of articles that don’t fit into their theory about the author and to make irrational judgements.

To illustrate, you said ‘ To describe war as putting "a spotlight on the things that fundamentally matter" seems to ignore the vital aspect that war itself is inherently unjustifiable.’ This totally ignores what I wrote: “I'm not saying that war is a good thing – quite the opposite, in fact! – but it is salutary to recognise what good can be salvaged from the worst of situations.”

You later claimed that I compared ‘the decisions made by citizens within a peacetime society unfavourably against atrocities committed under the moral "umbrella" of war’. Actually, I compared the peacetime decisions with the good that can be salvaged from war, such as “the satisfaction of seeing children whisked to safety”. I didn’t create any ‘moral umbrella of war’ and nor did I discuss atrocities. I did, however, point out the obscenity of not trying to save a defenceless child and the moral responsibility we have to feed and shelter refugees. I don’t think I said very much that was favourable about war, merely that war can – if we let it – bring out the best in us.

However, going by your comments, you are not capable of appraising such things rationally.

Jon J, there is evidence of sufficient exposure, e.g. “A 2007 New Zealand study found that Kiwi sailors exposed to the nuclear testing had three times the level of genetic abnormality and higher rates of cancer than the general population.” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/maralinga-vets-join-british-class-action/story-e6frg6nf-1225810746108) Our politicians have been furnished with plenty of evidence. Saying the exposure was insufficient doesn’t make it insufficient.

Interesting article Miskha. Provocative. In a good sense. I need some time to reread, sleep and then think. To weigh your ideas up against my conceptions and aspects of my morality.

Initially I sensed little emphasis on responsibility especially mutual or shared responsibilities between all involved/not involved in many circumstances. Eg war, refugee situations, infanticide, abortion, parliamentary exercises.

I'm also a little confused about your anti-semitic labelling. Would you mind clarifying for me. Thanks.

Why, thank you, my dear.

>>However, going by your comments, you are not capable of appraising such things rationally.<<

I might suggest that, going by your reaction to my comments, you are not capable of appraising your own work rationally. But of course I wouldn't do that, because that would be impolite.

I read your somewhat apologetic "I'm not saying that war is a good thing – quite the opposite, in fact!", complete with its emphatic exclamation mark. But it sat poorly with the black-and-white judgments you make in the rest of the article.

Of course good can come of evil.

"...it is salutary to recognise what good can be salvaged from the worst of situations"

No contest. But your position tends to fray around the edges when you shift those same decisions into a peacetime situation. Are you suggesting, for example, that outside a war zone we would be less inclined to "whisk children to safety" where a gun was pointed at their head?

Of course not. But you then equate the "whisking of children to safety" in a war zone, with an implied condemnation of our treatment of refugees.

>>...the obscenity of not trying to save a defenceless child and the moral responsibility we have to feed and shelter refugees<<

The first is a clear moral position, identical in war and in peace.

The second is a moral issue in war, but a political challenge in peacetime. You are attempting to turn it into a moral absolute, I accept that. But I don't see your argument as convincing as, apparently, you yourself do.

The thrust of your piece is that we should be more conscious of the moral dimension of our political decisions. A position with which I completely agree. It is only the clumsy battering-ram of war and peace imagery that I find utterly unconvincing, and detrimental to your argument.

Thanks for your comment Foyle.

Clearly my conception of conscience is the traditional Christian one which any google search could fill out. The CSL quote shows clearly that it can be strengthened, atrophied and therefore formed in childhood.

You beg the question of 'what clear teaching' actually is.

What are the foundations of this 'ethics' course? it's starting premises? Why should these be taken as true? They are philosophical/theological convictions about which you can in principle never produce physical scientific evidence for. Yet it is only from these - from within a narrative context – a picture or story about how the universe actually is - that human action makes sense and can be ethical.

I'm sure you're aware, to assert without argument that anti-traditional moral enquiry is 'ethical' is to hide one's own starting assumption from oneself. It is blind adherence to non-theist orthodoxy. An orthodoxy that has its own fears and promises that give an outline to its own teaching. Without these boundaries of thought and action authoritatively taught as true and good, how can one authoritatively pass on teaching that isn't considered authoritative?

Religious sanctions, (religious in the sense of unpremised and transcendent) will still be taught but they will be passed on uncritically because merely assumed rather than questioned. This boundary keeping while not boundary keeping will still find expression but in perverse ways in the classroom – writ large - political correctness, human rights tribunals and media enquiries.

It is dogmatic to rule out traditional time tested dogma as to how to properly form consciences as dogmatic, - and so incoherent.

So it's just garden variety begging the question to assert Christian inspired forming of consciences lacks the efficacy to: 'consider another's opinion' and 'defend their own position' or 'change their view'.

Foyle if your post was supposed to represent a defence of 'ethics' classes then, you'll forgive me if I think, we have much more to fear from those who support and promote such a thing than what we have now.

*Conscience is developed through the granting and witholding of love in childhood and can be a very poor guide to adult behaviour.*

So very true, Foyle. Of course the Catholic nuns and others try
to brainwash innocent kiddies with all sorts of nonsense, to make
them feel guilty. Given the warped Catholic views about sex and
sexuality, no wonder many are scarred for life.

Your ethics classes sound like a breathe of fresh air to me.
I would have much preferred them at school, rather then the
many attempts at religious indoctrination that I had to endure as
a kid.

You remember much Yabby, I wonder if this teaching made as much of an impression:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly"

Best wishes.