The morality of being a soldier

[Aaron]

No he means if a government gives a legal order to a solder, the solder has no right to contest this, has the solder has already agreed in advance to follow all legal orders of the government in order to protect and preserve his society.

Thanks Frigidmagi, that is indeed what I mean.

[Aaron]

Nitpick: Western soldiers does kill innocents but they do not intend to do so. Both morally and legally.
Theres a bunch of rotten eggs (Israel as an example) though but they are the extreme exception not the rule.

I should have been clearer. Innocents killed by Western soldiers are typically not killed on purpose. We do in fact take great pains to avoid that. In many cases our Rules Of Engagement are designed to avoid civvie deaths.

As SecondStorm pointed out, there are some exceptions (there always are) but you can't lump us all in the same basket you use to classify 3rd world soldiers.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I mean that if the orders from your government are legal than as a soldier you have no right to contest them.

What the fuck is she arguing for then? I don't get it. Soldiers aren't bad.

[Aaron]

What the fuck is she arguing for then? I don't get it. Soldiers aren't bad.

I have no idea. The best that I can come up with is that she is an idiot, that has no idea how the world works. Least of all the military.

[Sokartawi]

So what if he could have benefitted society? Maybe he could have. BUt what's more important - FAR more important - is that he's not benefitting society; he's harming it. If in some way he's been "driven over the edge" by circumstances beyond his control, I do feel sorry for him. But I feel sorrier for his victims. And long, long before I devote a single iota of energy to "understanding" or "reaching" him, I will be concerned about protecting them. And my sympathy really stops dead when people kill randomly, like Harris and Klebold at Columbine, or like Charles Whitman atop that tower with his rifle. The fact that you were abused may count as mitigating circumstances - if you exact vengeance on your abuser. But if someone is not harming you or has never harmed you, then you have an absolute obligation not to harm him or her. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances for violating this obligation. If you have pain in your life that someone else has caused, and you feel you need some payback, go find the person who caused it and deal with them (though you'd better be prepared for the consequences); killing completely innocent people is absolutely indefensible.

(Note that I am talking about the behavior of individuals here. Innocents do get killed in war, and unfortunately, this sort of collateral damage is inevitable, though armies which act morally do try to limit it as much as humanly possible.)

I don't see much of a a difference between murder in war and murder by 'normal' people, especially not when it concerns innocents. Both soldiers and 'normal' murders are pretty screwed in the head if they are able to take innocent lives.

By this logic then, we were morally obligated to sit on our hands and do nothing against the Nazis, because making war against them would inevitably involve the death of innocents. Of course, the fact that this would have allowed the Nazis to murder many millions more Jews, Gypsies, et al. is apparently insignificant to you. Based on your fucked up system of morality, making war on the Germans, and killing the 3,810,000 German civilians estimated to have died in WWII (World War II Casualties), to say nothing of the 3,250,000 German soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed, put us morally in the wrong. Nevermind the fact that not fighting the Germans would have enabled them to kill many millions more, not only Jews and others slaughtered like sheep in the death camps, but soldiers they were fighting, and civilian deaths they caused in the Soviet Union and other countries.

According to you, what is moral is whatever keeps you from getting your hands dirty, no matter how much more death and devastation result from it. I don't know whether to call this squeamishness or cowardice, but I do know it's despicable, whatever it is.

Well that's the whole idea with which this started on page one. I said you're not responsible for other people's evil actions, thus should do no evil either to stop their evil. This sets an example, that shows how you want other people to behave. Doing evil yourself sets the wrong example, and I consider it hypocritical if you do not like murderers killing people, but are willing to kill murderers, since I consider both these people murderers.

And of course it's very wrong what murderers do, but most of the time their heads are fucked up enough that they do not think rationally, and do not have empathy for their victims. I do honestly wonder how they got that way, and if it could have been prevented.

Since no human society has ever existed that has been able to prevent things like this from happening, or individuals like this from committing the crimes they commit, I would have to say, realistically, no, it can't be prevented. Perhaps if we lived in a utopian society, we could somehow, but we don't. And since no human institutions are, or ever have been, or ever will be perfect, I would have to say that our chances of successfully preventing any murders from ever taking place are essentially zero. So this leaves us with the necessity of facing up to what we can do to combat this problem. You're solution, apart from unrealistic and unrealizable fantasies about understanding and preventing murderers from murdering, is apparently to do nothing. This is unacceptable.

Well I already said action is allowed, but not lethal action. You don't have to sit there with your bag of popcorn while someone kills someone else. I believe todays society only creates more violence. Because people use murder to stop murder, which, as I said before, sets the wrong example, and shows that it's basically allowed to murder people when you believe it's justified. Mentally fucked up people might believe it's justified to murder for fun...

You're reply was basically "who cares? It's their decision to risk their lives." Your reply clearly indicated it would not be you.

That is correct in this case, because someone said *I* would be risking other people's lives. *I* am not risking lives to take the offender alive in this case, other people are risking theirs. That doesn't mean I would not risk mine if I would be in that situation.

Actually, based on the tactics you have advocated to apprehend murderers, I would say you would not risk your life, you would throw it away. The problem is also that you insist your way is the only moral one, and you clearly disapprove of more forceful and traditional ways of dealing with violent individuals - ways that may include the use of lethal force. I imagine that if you had the power to do so, you would require everyone else to act as you say you would do. Just because you are living in a fantasy world, and are willing to throw your life away by using ineffectual methods, do not expect others to join you.[/quote]
I don't think I would force anyone to act in my way if I was in power. I do not like to make laws and regulations. If I was in power I'd serve the people in other ways first.

Sorry, but a few thousand years of having intelligence is not going to erase behaviors that have been built into us by millions of years of natural selection. There is a good reason we and other animals will fight and kill to survive: species that lack this trait will go extinct. Again, I believe morality is rooted in this. It is moral to defend yourself. It is moral to defend your family. It is moral to defend your society by protecting it (or more accurately, the people in it) from enemies foreign and domestic.

I already said I believe in souls, and while evolution would apply to our bodies, and I do not deny that there are some basic traits in humans, we DO have something else, and can ignore that 'hardwired behavour' if we wish. IF we wish. A lot of people choose not to.

And I believe you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that souls exist. I personally believe that there is no afterlife, and this life is the only one we get. I base this belief on the total and complete lack of evidence to support the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, I would like to hang onto to my one and only life for as long as I possible can. And I, for one, do not intend to lose it prematurely, because I have crippled myself with unrealistic and ineffective behaviors, based on unproven and unprovable fantasies.[/quote]
If you believe that, are lives not even more valuable, and is ending someone else's live not worse then in my scenario? I don't understand how anyone with these beliefs could live with themselves if they killed another person. I would think they would rather die then live with that feeling of guilt.

[Perinquus]

By this logic then, we were morally obligated to sit on our hands and do nothing against the Nazis, because making war against them would inevitably involve the death of innocents. Of course, the fact that this would have allowed the Nazis to murder many millions more Jews, Gypsies, et al. is apparently insignificant to you. Based on your fucked up system of morality, making war on the Germans, and killing the 3,810,000 German civilians estimated to have died in WWII (World War II Casualties), to say nothing of the 3,250,000 German soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed, put us morally in the wrong. Nevermind the fact that not fighting the Germans would have enabled them to kill many millions more, not only Jews and others slaughtered like sheep in the death camps, but soldiers they were fighting, and civilian deaths they caused in the Soviet Union and other countries.

According to you, what is moral is whatever keeps you from getting your hands dirty, no matter how much more death and devastation result from it. I don't know whether to call this squeamishness or cowardice, but I do know it's despicable, whatever it is.

Well that's the whole idea with which this started on page one. I said you're not responsible for other people's evil actions, thus should do no evil either to stop their evil. This sets an example, that shows how you want other people to behave. Doing evil yourself sets the wrong example, and I consider it hypocritical if you do not like murderers killing people, but are willing to kill murderers, since I consider both these people murderers.

And as I said, you have a seriously broken moral compass. Stopping a murderous dictator from slaughtering people en masse was a morally good act. By the same token, if someone walks into a restaurant, whips out a gun and starts spraying bullets, and some off duty cop or armed citizen puts a bullet in his head, this is a morally good act. Killing wantonly, and killing to prevent wanton killing are not morally equivalent acts.

I fully agree with Edmund Burke, who said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.". You advocate doing nothing, which allows evil to triumph, and that is immoral.

Since no human society has ever existed that has been able to prevent things like this from happening, or individuals like this from committing the crimes they commit, I would have to say, realistically, no, it can't be prevented. Perhaps if we lived in a utopian society, we could somehow, but we don't. And since no human institutions are, or ever have been, or ever will be perfect, I would have to say that our chances of successfully preventing any murders from ever taking place are essentially zero. So this leaves us with the necessity of facing up to what we can do to combat this problem. You're solution, apart from unrealistic and unrealizable fantasies about understanding and preventing murderers from murdering, is apparently to do nothing. This is unacceptable.

Well I already said action is allowed, but not lethal action.

So you've said. Now allow me to welcome you to the real world. Sometimes the only way to stop a killer is by using lethal force against him.

You don't have to sit there with your bag of popcorn while someone kills someone else. I believe todays society only creates more violence.

Ah... the proverbial "cycle of violence"...

It's a crock. At least, it's a crock that violence inevitably leads to more violence. Violence sometimes leads to more violence. It also often stops further violence. This is a historically verifiable truth. The notion that force inexorably spirals out of control is ridiculously easy to refute.

I think it's true that resorting to unnecessary violence may very well lead to more violence. You may experience retaliation. It sometimes even happens with necessary violnce, so restraint in dealing with confrontations is generally a good idea. But people who spout platitudes about "ending the cycle of violence" never seem to have any good answer to a very imortant question: what do we do about people who have already turned to violence as their tactic of choice? Your answer is certainly pretty useless. You seem to favor either doing nothing, or taking action so restricted in nature as to be incapable of effectively dealing with the threat.

As Professor Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin said:

As a problem-solving tool, "violence first" has a couple of things going for it:

* It's simple
* It gets results, especially after word gets around that you don't hesitate to use violence
* It's gratifying. You get to vent pent-up rage, feel dominance over others, maybe even a sexual turn-on

Most pacifists react to this issue by simply pretending that it doesn't exist, that people either never deliberately choose violence, that violence always stems from earlier violence, poverty, or injustice, or that if people do deliberately choose violence, it's in rare cases that are not really of great importance. But history abounds with examples of people who have deliberately chosen violence. The ease with which people from non-violent backgrounds have been induced to commit atrocities in wartime shows how easy it can be for the violent to recruit assistants, and for the gratification factor to take hold. Thus, a single individual who opts for violence because he enjoys domination may succeed in recruiting many others less bold than he is. How do we respond to people who have opted for violence? Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.

Furthermore, violence is only the far end of the spectrum of force. Every screaming brat who throws a temper tantrum in public is testimony to the fact that children do not need to be taught the use of force.

There is one point Professor Dutch made in this quote that is so important I'm going to repeat it, with emphasis on the most important part:

How do we respond to people who have opted for violence? Appeasement merely reinforces the conviction that violence gets results. Moreover, it provides gratification by reinforcing the feeling of dominance. When confronting people who have already opted for violence, non-violence has a very good chance of perpetuating the cycle of violence. Retaliatory force, on the other hand, makes the results of violence a lot less simple, a lot less effective in getting results, and a lot less gratifying.

He is absolutely right! When confronting the violence, both appeasement and the perception that you will offer no resistance reinforce the aggressor's conviction that using violence will get him results. The perception that you will fight him, on the other hand, may deter him from using violence. Thus, non-violence may perpetuate the cycle of violence, not end it.

This is another historically verifiable truth. The failure of Neville Chamberlain's apeasement of Hitler is only the most famous example. There are many others.

Because people use murder to stop murder...

No, they using killing to stop murder. Kiling in self defense is not itself murder. Your attempt to define it as such does not make it valid.

which, as I said before, sets the wrong example, and shows that it's basically allowed to murder people when you believe it's justified. Mentally fucked up people might believe it's justified to murder for fun...

See above.

Actually, based on the tactics you have advocated to apprehend murderers, I would say you would not risk your life, you would throw it away. The problem is also that you insist your way is the only moral one, and you clearly disapprove of more forceful and traditional ways of dealing with violent individuals - ways that may include the use of lethal force. I imagine that if you had the power to do so, you would require everyone else to act as you say you would do. Just because you are living in a fantasy world, and are willing to throw your life away by using ineffectual methods, do not expect others to join you.

I don't think I would force anyone to act in my way if I was in power. I do not like to make laws and regulations. If I was in power I'd serve the people in other ways first.

Then all I can say is, thank god it's not up to you how I have to deal with violent felons at work.

And I believe you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that souls exist. I personally believe that there is no afterlife, and this life is the only one we get. I base this belief on the total and complete lack of evidence to support the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, I would like to hang onto to my one and only life for as long as I possible can. And I, for one, do not intend to lose it prematurely, because I have crippled myself with unrealistic and ineffective behaviors, based on unproven and unprovable fantasies.

If you believe that, are lives not even more valuable, and is ending someone else's live not worse then in my scenario?

No, because I will only be ending that life if the offender makes it necessary by threatening my life, or the life of another person. He makes a choice to do so. If he chooses to act like an evil man, I have no qualms about stopping him, even if that means I have to take his life.

I don't understand how anyone with these beliefs could live with themselves if they killed another person. I would think they would rather die then live with that feeling of guilt.

Then you think wrong. I would feel terrible guilt if I killed someone negligently, by driving drunk, for example, or by accidentally discharging my gun and shooting someone dead unintentionally. That would be the death of an innocent resulting from my bad behavior. However, if I ever have to kill someone deliberately, it will be because I had no other choice - he has left me with no other choice - if I were to save either my own life, or the life of a third party. And the man I killed in any such incident will have made this necessary by his own actions - actions which he made a conscious choice to take. That puts the responsibility for his death squarely on his shoulders. I have no sympathy for people who choose to be shitbags. I won't feel much guilt if I ever have to kill one either.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I assume she has never heard of the poem by Elie Weasel.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

or perhaps this one First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Kuroneko]

In other words, your moral code allows you to act in a completely selfish manner no matter what the circumstance, as long as you are not directly responsible for those circumstances. I assume you see no problem in this, but would you confirm or deny this evaluation?

I don't see it as selfish at all. I know it's more orientated around the individual, but that individual sometimes has to be willing to make sacrifices as well, which isn't selfish.

In this worldview, what is effectively the most valuable thing is karma, and one should never sacrifice it. If individual karma is the 'big picture', and even if one places little comparative value to the lives of the would-be victims [!], then one should still kill this hypothetical would-be mass-murder, because the cost to one's karma would be small compared to the cost to his own if he carries out this task. The fact that you are completely unwilling to sacrifice a bit of your own karma to preserve a much larger portion of his means that you are very selfish. Concern only with one's own well-being (or in this case, the well-being of one's karma) regardless of others is practically the definition of 'selfish'. In your case, this concern uis taken to such an extreme as to override even all possible considerations.

[CmdrWilkens]

I continue to live because I am hoping for a miracle that changes things.

Why it's a waste:
1) Lack of freedom. Can't live where I want (at least not legally) because everything is owned by someone, and if I want to buy someone out they ask outrageous prices.

Wait so you're sayign you should have the right to displace people already living somewhere simply because you want to live there? Wow that's about the most egotistical reason for calling life a waste I've ever heard.

2) People are idiots/sheep. Neighbour has a new kitchen? So what? Why do YOU want a new one too all of the sudden? Not happy with what you got? Then why did you buy it in the first place, idiot...

People are idiots/sheep and you wonder why people might have a dim view of your philosophy? People are complex creatures of emotions, needs, wants, and desires which mix and melt in interactions with each other. That some people seek to simplify this complexity by conforming to trends is a matter of seeking happiness through reduction in decision making. I'd hardly call that being an idiot even if I'd rather experience all of life. I certianly won't criticize people who want to conform to ease their lives because if it makes them happy why have distaste or are you honestly angry that some people can find happiness in a way that you can't?

3) Fashion. Yeah really. What is so cool about black suits and ties? They look fucking ugly, and I can't imagine they are very comfortable either. Sure you can wear what you want, but if you REALLY had a choice I wouldn't think so many people would wear that crap.

Life is a waste because of suits and ties? You honeslty have to be shitting me if one of your top reasons for objecting to the modern world is the freaking clothes a guy wears? Dear lord you need a psych evaluation if you think our society is worthless because of that...and fo the record I look damn good in a suit and its comfortable too.

4) Lack of purpose. Money doesn't really interest me much because besides computer stuff (I don't buy the most expansive fastest stuff by the way) and the occasional warhammer models there isn't much that I want to buy. Except a house in the middle of nowhere perhaps, but that cost a lot more. Status doesn't interest me either, I don't feel the need to compare myself with anyone else. So in short, capitalism like this is not a very nice place for me since it offers me very little.

So life is worthless because you have no purpose? I again repeat to you that that is a sad sad outlook on life and I'd suggest that you find something that you enjoy doing and just do it because otherwise you're gonna end up lying in a gutter somewhere. Seriously you needs some help or a big bear hug because that's a very sad outlook on life.

Also some other reasons but can always spew more later.

Feel free to tell me but if the first three reasons are all your objections that's pretty weak and a repitition of the fact that you find your life directionless just reinforces the validity of my suggestion that you get yourself a big bear hug and a trip to a counselor.

So I'm guessing I can expect no response to thie above?

[Sarevok]

Hey Sokartawi you still havent answered my rebuttals on page 40.

[Master of Ossus]

Hey Sokartawi you still havent answered my rebuttals on page 40.

She missed mine, too. I want to see how she justifies being annoyed with "masochistic sheep" when she blames everyone else for having feelings.

[Questor]

OK Sok-it-to-me, how do you feel about people who are willing to join the military but are turned down? How about police officers?

Got no problems with police officers as long as they don't kill people or give fines for rediculous reasons just to get their quotum. As for the military, it comes down to the question if you're willing to kill another human being or not.

What do you see as a police officers function?

I am now studying computer science and criminialistics, with the intent of eventually working in a crime lab.

At the moment I work for a public school district as an hourly employee and I put in at least four times what they pay me, while attending classes full-time.

A much better job to do I'd say.

Much better than what? Than being a criminalist? Or than being in the USN?

According to you, if someone tries to kill me I should not defend myself, at least to the point of using lethal force. How is my life worth less than the life of the person attacking me? Note that I am not saying that it is worth more from an objective standpoint, just that it is not worth less. Of course from a subjective standpoint I feel my life has value and should be preserved, why am I wrong?
Your life is not worth less at all. However, that does not matter in this case, since any differences in value of them would not justify killing anyone.

If you are saying that I have less right to live than someone who is attacking me, then that seems to be saying I have less value than the other person.

On another note, do you have children? Does this lack of action apply to threats to them if you do?

No to the first, and not likely that I ever will have (you may celebrate and/or make nasty comments now), but I might consider adopting kids at a later time or create a clone army when that technology becomes widely available

Why make nasty comments, there are a great many children that are in need of adoption?

If it does, I do not se how you can consider yourself anything but a plant. Any animal I can think of, at least at the moment, would die to prevent its young from being killed.

Either lions or some other big feline do not. If the males of a group get driven off by stronger males, then the young get killed off by the new males, so that the females become fertile again. The females hardly protect their young in this case.

OK, I think I remember something like that, but you fail to address the point I was making. You are saying that you consider keeping your hands clean to be more important than protecting those under your care. Regardless of whether you would kill to save a stranger, if a child is under your care, at least where I live, you are expected to do anything necessary to protect them. There is no legal penalty for not aiding someone, but there is a tremendous social stigma attatched. Many, myself included, would consider your attitude to be at least borderline cowerdice. Many would go farther than that.

Can you name a single culture that holds the preservation of one's morals to be higher than the preservation of the life of a child?

[Questor]

Why make nasty comments, there are a great many children that are in need of adoption?

The above should read: Why make nasty comments? There are a great many children that are in need of adoption.

My apologies for screwing up the punctuation and for any confusion as to my meaning.

[Sokartawi]

OK Sok-it-to-me, how do you feel about people who are willing to join the military but are turned down? How about police officers?

Got no problems with police officers as long as they don't kill people or give fines for rediculous reasons just to get their quotum. As for the military, it comes down to the question if you're willing to kill another human being or not.

What do you see as a police officers function?

Giving people directions, helping old ladies cross the street, give fines to speeders or other people that cause dangerous situations, catch shoplifters. Then again you should know a lot of officers do not go out with guns over here, and it's rare that they have to use any violence at all. Police officers do not get shot at and killed either. I read an article of some German that started shooting in the Netherlands a month or two ago, and one cop getting killed. The whole country's police force mourned because that was the second cop in 100 years to be killed.

I am now studying computer science and criminialistics, with the intent of eventually working in a crime lab.

At the moment I work for a public school district as an hourly employee and I put in at least four times what they pay me, while attending classes full-time.

A much better job to do I'd say.

Much better than what? Than being a criminalist? Or than being in the USN?

Better then to be in the navy.

According to you, if someone tries to kill me I should not defend myself, at least to the point of using lethal force. How is my life worth less than the life of the person attacking me? Note that I am not saying that it is worth more from an objective standpoint, just that it is not worth less. Of course from a subjective standpoint I feel my life has value and should be preserved, why am I wrong?
Your life is not worth less at all. However, that does not matter in this case, since any differences in value of them would not justify killing anyone.

If you are saying that I have less right to live than someone who is attacking me, then that seems to be saying I have less value than the other person.

I do not say you have less right to live. Did you read my statement? It started with "your life is not worth less at all" I think?

No to the first, and not likely that I ever will have (you may celebrate and/or make nasty comments now), but I might consider adopting kids at a later time or create a clone army when that technology becomes widely available

Why make nasty comments, there are a great many children that are in need of adoption?

Nasty comments because I do not reproduce...

Either lions or some other big feline do not. If the males of a group get driven off by stronger males, then the young get killed off by the new males, so that the females become fertile again. The females hardly protect their young in this case.

OK, I think I remember something like that, but you fail to address the point I was making. You are saying that you consider keeping your hands clean to be more important than protecting those under your care.

That is correct. Better to suffer a wrong then to cause one.

Regardless of whether you would kill to save a stranger, if a child is under your care, at least where I live, you are expected to do anything necessary to protect them. There is no legal penalty for not aiding someone, but there is a tremendous social stigma attatched. Many, myself included, would consider your attitude to be at least borderline cowerdice. Many would go farther than that.

I'd say it's courageous and noble to do anything and be willing to sacrifice everything to make the universe a better place.

Can you name a single culture that holds the preservation of one's morals to be higher than the preservation of the life of a child?

Pre-occupation Tibet maybe?

[Sokartawi]

In other words, your moral code allows you to act in a completely selfish manner no matter what the circumstance, as long as you are not directly responsible for those circumstances. I assume you see no problem in this, but would you confirm or deny this evaluation?

I don't see it as selfish at all. I know it's more orientated around the individual, but that individual sometimes has to be willing to make sacrifices as well, which isn't selfish.

In this worldview, what is effectively the most valuable thing is karma, and one should never sacrifice it. If individual karma is the 'big picture', and even if one places little comparative value to the lives of the would-be victims [!], then one should still kill this hypothetical would-be mass-murder, because the cost to one's karma would be small compared to the cost to his own if he carries out this task. The fact that you are completely unwilling to sacrifice a bit of your own karma to preserve a much larger portion of his means that you are very selfish. Concern only with one's own well-being (or in this case, the well-being of one's karma) regardless of others is practically the definition of 'selfish'. In your case, this concern uis taken to such an extreme as to override even all possible considerations.

Killing that murderer does not save him from getting karma, because he was WILLING to kill, and will not lose that willingness. Same with most soldiers, they are willing to kill and therefore are wrong, and it doesn't matter if they actually end up in killing someone or not. This murderer will do it again when you aren't around, and have to correct this trait. Murdering them does not correct it, and probably only makes him more pissed off and violent.

[CJvR]

Then again you should know a lot of officers do not go out with guns over here, and it's rare that they have to use any violence at all. Police officers do not get shot at and killed either.

Actually practically all Police officers are armed here in Sweden and there have been 4 incidents, IIRC, involving murder of on duty Police. There have been many more incidents of attempted murder.

[Kuroneko]

Killing that murderer does not save him from getting karma, because he was WILLING to kill, and will not lose that willingness. Same with most soldiers, they are willing to kill and therefore are wrong, and it doesn't matter if they actually end up in killing someone or not. This murderer will do it again when you aren't around, and have to correct this trait. Murdering them does not correct it, and probably only makes him more pissed off and violent.

Since personality is to a very large degree shaped by the environment one grows up in, a new life is the best hope for salvation this would-be murderer could have. Moreover, even if the intent to kill is what is actually important, killing him before he forms that intent for many more people would obviously be better for his karma, so this effectively changes nothing. Unless, of course, there no difference between a soldier who is willing to kill under certain circumstances, but does not, and a Hitler-esque character that planned and was responsible for the deaths of many millions. That position I find ludicrous, but it may be just what you intend. Is it?

[HemlockGrey]

To the people who are frustrated by slamming their heads into the wall, take comfort in the fact that every Sokarwarti is saying is basically a lie. Should she ever find herself in a kill-or-be-killed situation, we all know that she would disregard all her superior morale principles in a split second.

[Perinquus]

What do you see as a police officers function?

Giving people directions, helping old ladies cross the street, give fines to speeders or other people that cause dangerous situations, catch shoplifters. Then again you should know a lot of officers do not go out with guns over here, and it's rare that they have to use any violence at all. Police officers do not get shot at and killed either. I read an article of some German that started shooting in the Netherlands a month or two ago, and one cop getting killed. The whole country's police force mourned because that was the second cop in 100 years to be killed.

Folks, I am a police officer, and let me tell you, Sokartawi is living in fantasyland.

If you are saying that I have less right to live than someone who is attacking me, then that seems to be saying I have less value than the other person.

I do not say you have less right to live. Did you read my statement? It started with "your life is not worth less at all" I think?

Right here, you're talkin' the talk, but you're not walkin' the walk. You say that you don't hold his lfe to be less valuable. Yet the course of action you advise has the practical effect of making his life less valuable, because he would lose that life in any confrontation with a homicidal person if he followed your advise.

OK, I think I remember something like that, but you fail to address the point I was making. You are saying that you consider keeping your hands clean to be more important than protecting those under your care.

That is correct. Better to suffer a wrong then to cause one.

It's a damn good thing defending yourself from a deadly threat, even with lethal force is not, in fact, a wrong. Again, the fact that you seek to define it as such does not make that definition valid.

Regardless of whether you would kill to save a stranger, if a child is under your care, at least where I live, you are expected to do anything necessary to protect them. There is no legal penalty for not aiding someone, but there is a tremendous social stigma attatched. Many, myself included, would consider your attitude to be at least borderline cowerdice. Many would go farther than that.

I'd say it's courageous and noble to do anything and be willing to sacrifice everything to make the universe a better place.

The problem is that your way DOESN'T make the universe a better place. It makes it a worse one. It allows bullies, thugs, and other violence prone people to act unopposed.

I see you completely ignored my earlier post, wherein I pointed out that offering no resistance to, or appeasing a violent person may embolden him to further violence, reinforcing his conviction that violence will get him the result he wants, and reinforcing his ego-gratifying feeling of dominance - thus refuting the idea that violence inevitably leads to more violence. On some occasions it does, but on some occasions, what leads to more violence is non-violence, where the threat of retaliatory force, on the other hand, may serve as a deterrent. This has been recognized sine at least the time of ancient Rome (Si vis pacem para bellum), and probably long before.

I see you are ignoring this point. Could it be because it's historically verifiable, and you have no effective answer?

Can you name a single culture that holds the preservation of one's morals to be higher than the preservation of the life of a child?

Pre-occupation Tibet maybe?

And look how effectively such methods served them.

[Sokartawi]

Then again you should know a lot of officers do not go out with guns over here, and it's rare that they have to use any violence at all. Police officers do not get shot at and killed either.

Actually practically all Police officers are armed here in Sweden and there have been 4 incidents, IIRC, involving murder of on duty Police. There have been many more incidents of attempted murder.

Yes but not always.

[Sokartawi]

To the people who are frustrated by slamming their heads into the wall, take comfort in the fact that every Sokarwarti is saying is basically a lie. Should she ever find herself in a kill-or-be-killed situation, we all know that she would disregard all her superior morale principles in a split second.

That's a false accusation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To the people who are frustrated by slamming their heads into the wall, take comfort in the fact that every Sokarwarti is saying is basically a lie. Should she ever find herself in a kill-or-be-killed situation, we all know that she would disregard all her superior morale principles in a split second.

That's a false accusation.

Unless you have no survival instincts, it isnt.

[Mrs Kendall]

Actually Kendall he'd be shot.

Either way, I'd dance on his grave while pissing on it.

You probably won't mind my dancing on yours if you would have the chance again to give your precious life for your nation, and took it, either then?

Don't worry though, I'm not that kind of person, but don't expect any bit of gratitude either.

You EVER Fucking dance on my husbands grave or any soldiers grave you'de have so many people out ot kill you themselves it would not even be funny ! This is probably why you won't do it "cause I am not that kind of person" is not how I see it.

[Sokartawi]

What do you see as a police officers function?

Giving people directions, helping old ladies cross the street, give fines to speeders or other people that cause dangerous situations, catch shoplifters. Then again you should know a lot of officers do not go out with guns over here, and it's rare that they have to use any violence at all. Police officers do not get shot at and killed either. I read an article of some German that started shooting in the Netherlands a month or two ago, and one cop getting killed. The whole country's police force mourned because that was the second cop in 100 years to be killed.

Folks, I am a police officer, and let me tell you, Sokartawi is living in fantasyland.

No, you're living in a fucked-up land.

If you are saying that I have less right to live than someone who is attacking me, then that seems to be saying I have less value than the other person.

I do not say you have less right to live. Did you read my statement? It started with "your life is not worth less at all" I think?

Right here, you're talkin' the talk, but you're not walkin' the walk. You say that you don't hold his lfe to be less valuable. Yet the course of action you advise has the practical effect of making his life less valuable, because he would lose that life in any confrontation with a homicidal person if he followed your advise.

So?

OK, I think I remember something like that, but you fail to address the point I was making. You are saying that you consider keeping your hands clean to be more important than protecting those under your care.

That is correct. Better to suffer a wrong then to cause one.

It's a damn good thing defending yourself from a deadly threat, even with lethal force is not, in fact, a wrong. Again, the fact that you seek to define it as such does not make that definition valid.

Again, I don't see the difference between killing in self defence, killing for fun, killing in war, or killing to 'save' other people. It's all killing. And I call it all murder.

Regardless of whether you would kill to save a stranger, if a child is under your care, at least where I live, you are expected to do anything necessary to protect them. There is no legal penalty for not aiding someone, but there is a tremendous social stigma attatched. Many, myself included, would consider your attitude to be at least borderline cowerdice. Many would go farther than that.

I'd say it's courageous and noble to do anything and be willing to sacrifice everything to make the universe a better place.

The problem is that your way DOESN'T make the universe a better place. It makes it a worse one. It allows bullies, thugs, and other violence prone people to act unopposed..

However those people will be greatly reduced in number, and might eventually disappear alltogether.

I see you completely ignored my earlier post, wherein I pointed out that offering no resistance to, or appeasing a violent person may embolden him to further violence, reinforcing his conviction that violence will get him the result he wants, and reinforcing his ego-gratifying feeling of dominance - thus refuting the idea that violence inevitably leads to more violence. On some occasions it does, but on some occasions, what leads to more violence is non-violence, where the threat of retaliatory force, on the other hand, may serve as a deterrent. This has been recognized sine at least the time of ancient Rome (Si vis pacem para bellum), and probably long before.

While threat of force migth "work" for some time, you cannot maintain it indefinately. And if you try, it will only result in tyranny and oppresion, and that's not a situation that's acceptable either.

I see you are ignoring this point. Could it be because it's historically verifiable, and you have no effective answer?

Like I said, I still see war, so it hasn't been a solution for the last 10k years or so. Time for something new.

Can you name a single culture that holds the preservation of one's morals to be higher than the preservation of the life of a child?

Pre-occupation Tibet maybe?

And look how effectively such methods served them.

I believe that was necessairy to spread their wisdom throughout the world.