luc said:
Like others I think that a general "though shalt not kill" is very simplistic and actually serves the psychopathic elite, who have no problems killing on a massive scale and bailing themselves out using expensive lawyers. However, if we say that it all depends on the aim, and that sometimes killing is allowed in order to do "something good", this too brings a lot of problems - the problems of any utilitarian ethic that looks at the "net outcome" of an action to judge whether it's moral or not. As we know, this sort of thinking has been put forth to justify all kinds of cruelty, including torture, preemptive strikes, mass slaughters etc.
So when I think about it, maybe the problem with ethics as a philosophical discipline and law as a codification of ethics is the fact that it ignores the different levels of being. Meaning, it transforms morality into a purely intellectual exercise and postulates a fixed set of rules, which will always fail eventually since it doesn't take into account large chunks of reality/the details of the situation/the "law of three". So I think there cannot be real moral behavior without proper self-work, as in balancing the centers (intellect, emotion, body) and thus really getting in touch with one's conscience (or "higher being"). So I guess that, for example, even a discussion of self-defense cannot come to a satisfying conclusion: There will always be exceptions and cases where this distinction doesn't help. And so it goes with all ethical "systems". Instead, we could ask the question: Did someone act from his/her conscience, based on the best information available?
I think you've touched on some important points. I like the way David Ray Griffin talks about morality and values. For him, morality deals with the "ultimate concern". Everyone has values, even psychopaths, but psychopaths only value themselves. They have no conception of a wider sphere of values, things of ultimate concern. The 'good' or the 'moral' is that which aligns with the ultimate: an action, a state of affairs, that is objectively better than its alternatives, given the conditions in which an action is made, and in reference to universal, objective values. But 'better' or 'best' according to what measure? That gets back to the 'ultimate': what does the universe/cosmic mind 'want'? What is 'best' for the evolution of the universe? In other words, as Gurdjieff asked, what is the aim of existence?
I don't think utilitarianism gets to the heart of the matter. You can't just calculate relative body counts and say 100 deaths are worse than 1 death. To use Caesar as an example, we have to look at the conditions at the time, and take into account what was best, given what was possible. If Caesar had achieved his goals, it would have been good -- for Romans, for the world, for the universe: "A shining city on the hill." In that sense, his murder was a great evil.
But take a single battle. Would it have been 'better' if Caesar was killed in place of 100 of his soldiers? If his goal was to lessen killing to as great an extent as possible, then the fewer deaths the better. But his own role in the process was vital, and his own death in an early campaign would have made impossible the achievement of his vision. Caesar had more intrinsic value: As the C's said, he had "extraordinary intelligence and insight." In other words, he could receive, process, and create more true information. He had a ton of knowledge: self-consistent, interlocking information. His own Being was high-quality information: balanced, organized, consistent. He had the vision to see things as the are, to judge that state as less than ideal, to see what COULD be, and how to organize things in such a way as to be better: more aligned with the ultimate concern.
So perhaps his soldiers' value was in the selfless service to a 'good' greater than their own? As for his enemies' deaths, by fighting him, they made clear on some level their opposition to a better state of affairs on the planet. "Thou shalt not kill" is too simplistic. Imagine if Caesar had taken the completely pacificist approach. Even Gandhi thought that if someone was attacked, it was their responsibility to fight tooth and nail to protect themselves.
Maybe Caesar's vision was and is impossible. People are too fickle and self-centered to change by example. But it's important to the universe to see the world as it is and as it could be, and to do whatever possible make it a better place. If 'God' is the Cosmic Mind of the Universe, we are DCM's 'body'. It's up to us to debug the universe, to receive, process, create, and transmit information in the way we live our lives, in our social interactions, in our choices, in the legacy we leave our children. Our plans may not bear the fruit we'd like, but who knows what effect the struggle may actually have.