Grant US Grant ethics?

[breckod]

And this is the problem with these discussions about Grant. Things get exaggerated all out of proportion. "99% of Whites" and "Murdered Native Americans for Sport" are prime examples.

Ron White is a good biographer, but I believe I mentioned others as well, such as Jean Edward Smith and Brooks Simpson. The writers who are horribly slanted against Grant - such as Rose, Varney, Moore, Leigh - have their own agendas.

The White bio has its problems (from memory, he gets some of the command relationships in the Civil War badly wrong in a way that suggests his reading on the military side of things was pretty surface-level and his coverage of Native American affairs was very thin) but for a single volume that deals with Grant's whole life I don't know that you can do much better.

 

[Rebforever]

Besides that, it's way off topic.

 

[121st PA Vols]

His morality was clear, he thought it the most unjust war ever. "Most unjust" is certainly a moral judgement. Its ethics if he acted on his morality or not............

You said...."However being a willing participant in what he felt was "the most unjust war ever" certainly raises ethical questions to his morality."
I still don't see the ethical questions raised. He was a soldier. What are these ethical questions?

 

[archieclement]

You said...."However being a willing participant in what he felt was "the most unjust war ever" certainly raises ethical questions to his morality."
I still don't see the ethical questions raised. He was a soldier. What are these ethical questions?

That he himself stated he didn't have the moral courage to resign.

The judgement was his, I assume he's better able to judge his ethics then anyone, as he's the only one that knows for sure his moral view..

Why I usually try to refrain from calling someone unethical or immoral, as I cannot know their morality at the time of the actions, ethics goes to their morality not mine. As well i recognize morality certainly varied to eras. Here's an instance of the individual himself acknowledging an ethical failure however.

I could state I view something immoral of a different era, but it offers nothing as to if they did, which their ethics would involve what they believed, not mine 150 yrs later.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The judgement was his, I assume he's better able to judge his ethics then anyone, as he's the only one that knows for sure his moral view..

Some people are their own worst critic. Other people never admit to any wrong.

 

[archieclement]

Some people are their own worst critic. Other people never admit to any wrong.

Certainly people are better qualified to judge their own actions then anyone else. No argument there. They are the only ones not guessing as to the reasoning, or what they knew, or felt at the time.

Particularly if referring to morality or ethics which by nature is rather individualistic.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Particularly if referring to morality or ethics which by nature is rather individualistic.

Some individuals have very self-serving views of morality and ethics.

 

[archieclement]

Some individuals have very self-serving views of morality and ethics.

The very nature of "morality" is self serving.......certainly if in variation to the majority opinion of it.

But certainly zealots require self serving to justify actions.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The very nature of "morality" is self serving.......certainly if in variation to the majority opinion of it.

But certainly zealots require self serving to justify actions.

No, morality and ethics are not supposed to be self-serving.

Slavery zealots certainly came up with their own self-serving justifications.

 

[archieclement]

No it indeed is, even collective morality reflected in law is for what? The perceived benefit of the majority......that is still indeed self serving.

Just as using "morality" to justify breaking laws or societial norms would be.........in this case it's to excuse your crimes.....self serving...

The reason morality isn't a set standard is because any society, time period, religion, even individuals can mold it to fit their needs or wishes......

 

[DanSBHawk]

No it indeed is, even collective morality reflected in law is for what? The perceived benefit of the majority......that is still indeed self serving.

Just as using "morality" to justify breaking laws or societial norms would be.........in this case it's to excuse your actions.....self serving.....

No, you very obviously don't understand the meaning of "self serving."

 

[archieclement]

No, you very obviously don't understand the meaning of "self serving."

I disagree, it seems you dont.

But the reality is the OP was about one man's sense of morality and ethics of if he followed his morals. He found himself lacking moral courage. If you find Grant noting he felt he lacked moral courage as self serving its noted. I don't, I just see him being rather frank personally as to his view.

 

[DanSBHawk]

If you find Grant noting he felt he lacked moral courage as self serving its noted.

Obviously, I never said that, so it's just more bad faith.

 

[archieclement]

Obviously, I never said that, so it's just more bad faith.

Yes as then your posts are meant as nothing more then a distraction to the OP.

Which also shows morality isn't some set standard, as one certainly don't see all Mexican War veterans viewing the war immoral, or their participation a lack of moral courage. Its rather individualistic, which leaves Grant the most qualified to judge his ethics.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes as then your posts are meant as nothing more then a distraction to the OP.

Noted that you consider differing points of view as 'distractions.'

The bottom line is that Grant had misgivings about the Mexican war, but he was also a professional soldier with duties and obligations.

 

[Dead Parrott]

The bottom line is that Grant had misgivings about the Mexican war, but he was also a professional soldier with duties and obligations.

Too logical and obvious.

 

[Belfoured]

Too logical and obvious.

Some folks apparently live in a bubble. If they knew anybody who served in 'Nam, for example, there were plenty who did their duty and had their doubts.

 

[archieclement]

Noted that you consider differing points of view as 'distractions.'

The bottom line is that Grant had misgivings about the Mexican war, but he was also a professional soldier with duties and obligations.

No, I call multiple rabbit holes from the actual OP distractions.

As this OP was actually rather simple in morality and ethics.

It only involved one persons morality, which he stated his opinion of the war.
And it only involved one persons sense of ethics, in their judgement of if they followed their own morality.....

As it was logical and obvious to Grant, why he thought he had lacked moral courage. Indeed find it odd anyone would finds Grants reflection on his ethics as "living in a bubble". As if he was somehow unqualified to judge his own morality and if he followed it.

As the judgement of Grants ethics in this thread, was his own.

 

[rbasin]

His criticism of the Mexican war, to me, is justified. But, he was a soldier, so I see why he went.

I think Grant wasn't as naive as he tried to make out.

I think anyone I have converses with me here knows my opinion of Grant as a general, but that's not the OPs question. Do I think he was ethical? Fast answer? No.

 

[rbasin]

Do you have a quote where Grant came to the conclusion Grant thought that the CW was punishment for the Mexican War?

Didn't that appear in Foote's trilogy?