I was just reading about how a current Israeli war minister’s son died in combat and it made me wonder that if Israeli’s politicians who make these decisions know their family will be affected by it personally and directly, does that lend towards the suggestion that it is more likely they are making genuinely ethically and morally correct decisions to engage in war stuff given their personal skin i the game?
It would seem totally different from American politicians like Cheney who create bullshit geopolitical conflicts knowing full well their progeny will never be touched by it…
Edit: I’m assuming they actually care/give a shit about their offspring and family, even if only just for appearences
If your main question is if it leads to more morally correct decisions, then that would be a very hard no.
Most people do believe they are doing the right thing. The Americans are, the Russians are and the Chinese are. They DO believe what they do is correct. Same with religion.
But does that make any of the above groups more correct than the other? The answer is: No, it’s their actions that shows that.
My point is, Israel will always think what they do is morally correct, no matter if it is or not. And when you act in that belief, you can justify almost anything in the world. Because you really think it’s the right thing to do.
Mabe morally correct isn’t quite the right notion. Maybe I was more getting at good faith plus worth the potential loss of a beloved member of their family for yhe greater good.
Its very easy to make abstract bloody decisions and send strangers children to war if it never hits close to home so I was playing with that notion as a nexus to getting a better understanding of why Israel would engage in Hydra-busting (West Bank expansion etc) if they were on the hook (in terms of their offsprings lives) for the collateral damage likely to result from such controversial and perilous efforts
Sounds like what you are trying to articulate is the idea of ethical relativism.