I forwarded this hypothetical conversation to a friend of mine who is in support of our military action in Kuwait. He responded, claiming that he despises Platonic dialectic and that it doesn't give prudence to the opposing viewpoint. He accused it of exhibiting "moral relativism."

Isn't any debate about whether or not war is justified moral relativism? Isn't war always a decision about goals and what is worth sacrificing for them? To chide nearly any debate about sociopolitical issues for being morally relative is like chiding cookies for being baked in an oven. The whole point of a debate concerning the sacrifice of lives, innocent or otherwise, for the sake of resources and/or global security is to debate the moral implications of such actions. He argues for the war using what facts he has at his disposal because he feels the military action is morally justified. I argue against it because I feel that it is morally reprehensible, and the link above brings up just about every reason why I feel that way. Is it morally relative? God damn right.

Every argument has a counterargument in a situation where as lowly, middle-class civilians, we don't have all the answers. The only evidence any of us have to argue for or against the war is circumstantial or heresay; we can only go on what we read, hear, and hypothesize. We take the side Fox News* or Michael Moore tells us to take. It's not exercising free speech as much as it is exercising the right to repeat what pundits and politicians tell us to repeat.

Even if I didn't voraciously devour as much news and political thought from every side as I can, though, I'd still take the side that does not kill civilians, place Americans in danger of more acts of terrorism, and spend billions of dollars that could be better spent promoting peace.

*Sidenote: My father told me the other night that Fox News was the only "fair and balanced" news out there. Not only did he quote their slogan in brainwashed fashion, but he made me feel like I was adopted.