It is a colossal assumption to think that a moral attitude is determined by one’s knowledge and ignorance. If you agree on the “facts” of the situation it absolutely does not follow that you will agree on the best practical response to that situation.

*

Whenever I read spiritual scripture and the best philosophy I always keep this in mind: two generals can survey the same battlefield and assess the situation identically, but then go on to attack and attempt to destroy one another. All armies tend toward similar principles of warfare and military discipline within their ranks. In this, there is common ground. Likewise, the traditional religions acknowledge the same metaphysical structures, and tend to prescribe similar moral principles. However, the essential purpose of an army is not in its What and How. It is all about the Why.

A good general sees his and his opponent’s “Why” written all over the battlefield. These Whys can be, but are not necessarily, the national cause. An interesting question: What if the very best generals do actually share a common Why, but a common Why who commands them to fight? Justice requires us to entertain this possibility.

*

A general stakes his life on being more right than his opponent. The sheer reality of the casual utterances of generals can be comically overwhelming. A good example from General George Patton: “Gentlemen, the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”