That's a very involved and thought-provoking post, Mercury....
I won't even presume to suggest to you that I have any of the
answers.... here's something that I can suggest to you that I do
believe I know.... when it comes to interchanges between People, in
"doing", through suggested courses of action, there are different
"roles" that the various "participants" in those interchanges
assume....
I call those "roles"the following
Agent = the person(s) who suggests that a specific course of action be
performed or carried out, for given motive or reason.
Patient= the person(s) who actually performs or carries out the course
of action, for given reason or motive.
Recipient= the person(s) who receive the effect of the performed or
carried out course of action, for given motive or reason.
Prompter= the person who, although not a participant at first, feels
obliged to somehow intervene in a performed or carried out course of
action.
In the case of you and your brother's Marine Corps "experiences"....
the Corps was the "Agent" that told your brother what course of
action to perform or carry out (under their own motive or
reason)....your brother was the "Patient" who carried out his course
of action directions, probably under "order" (accepting also the given
motive or reason). The "Recipient(s)" of those courses of action
performed by your brother as a Marine are the people that he may have
been ordered to act against in his capacity as a soldier. You,
Mercury, I say are coming into this situation in the role of a
"Prompter"... there's something about your brother's Marine
experiences that you don't like or agree with and that you would like
to change or remedy. even though you actually aren't or weren't
directly involved in any of yourMrine brother's "ordered" courses of
action (or the motives and reasons therefor).
Now, this is not a question of Psychology... I won't try to say which
course of action (or motive or reason, therefor) was "right" or
"proper"... that's for every single person to decide... But just as a
matter of possible choice... each "role" has possible alternatives or
decisions that it can take... and sometimes those choices or decisions
are restricted or outside of one's own control, depending on the
"role".
Here's what you said in your post... Mercury...
)...I know the Marine Corp uses
brainwashing techniques, They have to, its not normal to kill another
person, we aren't animals(most of us aren't anyways, But the Marine
Corp "trains" a man to be a killing machine) / Mercury
The thing is, soldiers are definitely "trained" to be killing
machines... but maybe that isn't always the wrong thing to do?... a
little discrimination... differentiation... may apply. Let me suggest
some possible alternatives for you....
MOTIVE..............................COURSE OF ACTION
A. National Defense / Kill Aggressor Enemy.
B. National Defense / Kill Innocent Inhabitant.
C. Invasion or Expansion for Profit / Kill Aggresor Enemy
D. Invasion or Expansion for Profit / Kill Innocent Inhabitant
Now, I just made those alternatives up, myself, if you think thast
there are other motives or courses of action applicable to the case
that you have in mind... please identify them yourself, but also try
to think of their "contraries or contradictories", too, to balance out
the question. Now, in those course of action (and motive) "choices"
that I suggested above would you say that some are more "right" than
others?... and which do you think applied to the case of the U.S
Marine Corps in general (without getting to the particular case of
your brother) in these recent years, what with 9/11, Afghanistan,
Iraq, etc.?
There's something called Artistotle's Square of Logical
opposition....Where you can place these Motives and Courses of Action
in relation to each other. either as "diametrically opposed" or as on
partly opposed through contradiction...Here's how I believe the four
"choices" above would align up....
A.______________________D.
B.______________________C.
Anyway... depending on what you judged to be important in the
situation under consideration... you could say..... The Marine Corps
as Agents suggested a "wrong" course of action concerning the Motive
or the Course of Action or Both... My Marine brother As Patient did
the "wrong" thing in agreeing to do as the Marine Corps "ordered"...
he either should not have joined or he should have disobeyed orders
for reasons of (illegality,conscience or whatever). The Marine Corps
or my brother did something "wrong" in carrying out the "motivated
course of action" in that he or they "victimized" a recipent either
by action or by motivated reason.
As Prompter, I heard about what my brother or the Marine Corps in
general did in certain motivated courses of action and, although I had
not direct part in it, I think some action was definitely "wrong"
and should be changed there.
Here's the restrictions. As Recipient, the party has no choice
whatsoever in the received action, and can only speak to the
motivation underlying it... As Prompter, the party has no choice
whatsoever in the motivation of the course of action but can only
speak to the course of action itself... of course, the roles can
change almost instantaneously (even for the same person or
character)... up until the course of action is actually carried out.
I doubt that All of this makes sense to you... there's a lot of
"stuff"... but if you want to continue this discussion.... maybe you
can specify one piece of the whole at a time.... bit by bit....
By the way, I haven't even broached the "lies" problem.... where
people are not actually honest in relaying their true motivations or
actual courses of action.... That gets into a whole other level of
complication... doable, though.
nominal9