[alancalverd]

Killing anyone is immoral because I wouldn't like it if you killed me without my permission, and I wouldn't kill my nearest and dearest unless they asked me to. Which is why I said "never mind the morality....act of expediency". There's the problem faced by conscientious objectors: when should you set local morality aside for the greater good? And that's the weakness of your search for a universal moral standard - killing bad people is sometimes a good thing to do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What's the moral of this story?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I wouldn't like it if you killed me without my permission

Do you have any particular reason?
Is it just your instinct or intuition?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Which is why I said "never mind the morality....act of expediency".

It means that you just follow your own moral standard and disregard  other people's.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There's the problem faced by conscientious objectors: when should you set local morality aside for the greater good? And that's the weakness of your search for a universal moral standard - killing bad people is sometimes a good thing to do.

Have you read my post on the universal terminal goal? Do you find any problems in it?

[alancalverd]

Which is why I said "never mind the morality....act of expediency".

It means that you just follow your own moral standard and disregard  other people's.

Morals are useless when you are dead.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morals are useless when you are dead.

OK, but it can still be useful for your descendants or successors. Death of previous generations can be necessary to improve the survival chance of future generations. Although it may no longer apply when technological singularity has been achieved.

[alancalverd]

Morality is a social lubricant, but like other lubricants, it only works with compatible surfaces. War is the conjunction of incompatible societies, and personal violence is the conjunction of incompatible individuals, so moral considerations may not always be paramount.   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality is a social lubricant, but like other lubricants, it only works with compatible surfaces. War is the conjunction of incompatible societies, and personal violence is the conjunction of incompatible individuals, so moral considerations may not always be paramount.   

The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerations. In simpler animal lives and game theory, it calls for fight or flight responses. The basic rules they use to make those decisions represent their moral standard, whatever they might be.

[alancalverd]

The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerations

Just one: Can I gain political support or deflect mounting political criticism by invading someone else's territory?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerations

Just one: Can I gain political support or deflect mounting political criticism by invading someone else's territory?

It depends on how you can convince your constituencies. Some historical figures have done it.

[alancalverd]

The Machiavellian Principle was formulated under that name in the 1500s but was well known to earlier civilisations in Europe and Asia. Most recently and famously adopted by Hitler, Thatcher/Galtieri, Bush/Blair, and now Putin, but with plenty of historical references to more successful empires, It's a 50-50 bet so only undertaken by the desperate or the deluded. 

Successive failed invasions of Afghanistan were actually a clever derivative of the Principle, where you offer armed support (and eventually commit combat forces) to the sides in a third-party civil war until your chosen side wins, whereupon you withdraw or even support the other side thus gaining electoral kudos for "bringing the troops home" or supporting the underdog.

Foreign war is more popular and less divisive than football.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Decision to go to war is not just for offensive action. It's also for defensive purpose.
In recent examples, Afghan government officials chose to not go to war, evacuated, and let the Talibans to take control.
On the other hand, Ukrainian government officials chose to go to war against Russian invasion.

[alancalverd]

Aha! So invasion is an inevitable consequence of third-party attitudes, and self defence is a matter of choice. I think we have found Putin's successor, even more fluent in Newspeak.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Aha! So invasion is an inevitable consequence of third-party attitudes,

It's inevitable conclusion of your own reasoning.

and self defence is a matter of choice.

They can choose to flee. They can choose to resist. Their decision depends on many factors to consider. Let's hear what their reasonings are.

[alancalverd]

They can choose to flee.

Not if they are killed, surrounded and starved, enslaved, or males of military age.  What fairyland do you inhabit?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They can choose to flee.

Not if they are killed, surrounded and starved, enslaved, or males of military age.  What fairyland do you inhabit?

Some of them have already fled the country and became refugees. Are you living under a rock?
If something is beyond someone's control, such as their genetics, or their cultural background, it can't be used to evaluate their moral standard. Being invaded  has different moral burden than invading neighbor.

[alancalverd]

So the civilians currently trapped in the Mariupol steelworks have only themselves to blame? And the soldiers defending themselves are as immoral as the scum attacking them? Get real, HY.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So the civilians currently trapped in the Mariupol steelworks have only themselves to blame? And the soldiers defending themselves are as immoral as the scum attacking them? Get real, HY.

I think it's a good time for you to learn about strawman fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/politics-quotes
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
Plato

Freedom isn't free. It shouldn't be a bragging point that 'Oh, I don't get involved in politics,' as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn't insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.
Bill Maher

I'd like to emphasize that embracing a wrong moral value will bring unwanted consequences. It's in contrast with what moral relativism says.