The morality of being a soldier

[Master of Ossus]

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

Pacifist decides to live, instead of die. NO ONE IS HURT.

Face it: the pacifist is equally responsible if they have an opportunity to survive their ordeal and they choose not to.

The idea that you can assign responsibility based on INaction is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Let's envision this scenario:

A railroad runs off the track, killing a few people and injuring others. In addition, serious economic harm is done to society since it relied on the contents of the railroad and its continued operation.

The people responsible for safety at the RR didn't do their jobs, and forgot that they needed to maintain the frickin' tracks. When called on it, they say they weren't responsible because if they did nothing (ie. didn't do their jobs), then everyone was obviously hurt. The true culprit, they say, is the engineer on the crashed train. If HE hadn't have shown up to work that day, the train never would've gone over the dangerous tracks and never would've crashed. Thus, no one would've been hurt.

You cannot seriously assign relative guilt or innocence on such a farcical system of reasoning. People who have an opportunity to do something and choose not to do it are responsible for their INactions, as well as their actions.

Besides which, saying that the murderer is MORE responsible for the relatives being hurt does nothing to defeat the argument that the pacifist bears SOME responsibility for choosing to die. The pacifist's actions directly led to harm to other innocents, who literally did nothing wrong. The pacifist bears SOME responsibility for their pain, even if the murderer bears more. You have completely failed to rebut the point.

[CJvR]

And just to clarify, do your perceptions on who's the good guys and the bad guys shift with who's defender and aggressor? Did the Allies in WWII become the bad guys when they invaded Germany?

Were they ever the good guys? France and Britain was the ones declaring war on Hitler instead of using non-violence when Hitler attacked Poland.

[Trogdor]

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

And once again, you wash yourself of any responsibility for the matter. You made those relasionships too. You had the ability to fight back and kill the murderer.

The murder is responsible for his/her actions as YOU are with YOURS.

Inaction weights less then action, and the murderer is clearly the cause here, and killing him makes me do an EVIL action while doing nothing or at least not killing him is not evil. Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

The murderer is the aggressor. By your own admission, he's the bad guy and deserves death more than you, that's why.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't mind people like Sokartawi. Peopler like her make decisions that much easier. Imagine the lifeboat scenario, where one person has to go. We can toss Sokartawi overboard because she wouldn't put up a struggle, or fight to get back on the boat. And we know she wouldn't bother assisting us in our survival, so its no big loss. At all.

Maybe asking nicely would work just as good as tossing...

Nope. Nowhere near as satisfying.

Now that scenario where person A is going to kill 5 people; if I were person B, I'd shoot to kill, several times. Head shot if I could manage it. Now if person B sat idly byand let person A kill 5 people, me, as person C would beat person B to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat.

But that's just me...

I would try to stop person A, just not kill him. [/quote]

If you had no ability to stop him EXCEPT by killing him, would you do it?

[Sokartawi]

Geneva convention or not, soldiers still kill, which is enough.

No it's not. For all your bluster and crying you still don't understand why we do it. We put our lives on the line to serve our countries. And when we have to kill, we don't like it. We do it because our friends are counting on us to pull our weight and watch our arcs of fire. Stop confusing professional Western Soldiers with the fundie asshats that the Middle East employs, those people enjoy killing and are the real murderers.

I suggest you go educate yourself on soldiers and their motivations before spouting this dogma.

You don't get me, do you? Killing is not justified, that includes doing it for your country, and that includes if it saves other people.

[Sokartawi]

If you had no ability to stop him EXCEPT by killing him, would you do it?

No.

[Trogdor]

And just to clarify, do your perceptions on who's the good guys and the bad guys shift with who's defender and aggressor? Did the Allies in WWII become the bad guys when they invaded Germany?

Were they ever the good guys? France and Britain was the ones declaring war on Hitler instead of using non-violence when Hitler attacked Poland.

They tried non-violence, it didn't work. And how about the Americans and the Soviets, then? The US didn't get into the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and the USSR didn't until the Nazis invaded them.

[Aaron]

Were they ever the good guys? France and Britain was the ones declaring war on Hitler instead of using non-violence when Hitler attacked Poland.

Actually France and Britain had a defense treaty with Poland. They were to come to her defense if attacked. So they were honouring their treaty obligations. Although they didn't actually help Poland, but thats another story.

[Sokartawi]

And once again, you wash yourself of any responsibility for the matter. You made those relasionships too. You had the ability to fight back and kill the murderer.

The murder is responsible for his/her actions as YOU are with YOURS.

Inaction weights less then action, and the murderer is clearly the cause here, and killing him makes me do an EVIL action while doing nothing or at least not killing him is not evil. Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

The murderer is the aggressor. By your own admission, he's the bad guy and deserves death more than you, that's why.

Deserves is not an excuse for murder.

[Trogdor]

Geneva convention or not, soldiers still kill, which is enough.

No it's not. For all your bluster and crying you still don't understand why we do it. We put our lives on the line to serve our countries. And when we have to kill, we don't like it. We do it because our friends are counting on us to pull our weight and watch our arcs of fire. Stop confusing professional Western Soldiers with the fundie asshats that the Middle East employs, those people enjoy killing and are the real murderers.

I suggest you go educate yourself on soldiers and their motivations before spouting this dogma.

You don't get me, do you? Killing is not justified, that includes doing it for your country, and that includes if it saves other people.

Even if by not killing you cause more people to die? Death on your hands are justified so long as they're indirect deaths? You are a coward.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You don't get me, do you? Killing is not justified, that includes doing it for your country, and that includes if it saves other people.

I hope that's your tune if you ever do come across a murderer, especially if it's one who rapes or tortures first. Because I sure as hell won't show that leniency, or should I say, stupidity should I or my family and friends be endangered.

I'm glad I don't know anyone like you in reality. It'd be hard to rely on someone who simply couldn't give a shit about anything.

Consider your moral highground privileges rescinded.

[Aaron]

You don't get me, do you? Killing is not justified, that includes doing it for your country, and that includes if it saves other people.

I get you perfectly. I see a coward who is unwilling to kill or even maim to help her friends or defend her country. Good thing you get to avoid Swedens draft, brings up the question of what you would do if you were drafted and HAD to fight. Would you just toss your weapon on the ground and cower and pray, ala Jessica Lynch?

[Trogdor]

Inaction weights less then action, and the murderer is clearly the cause here, and killing him makes me do an EVIL action while doing nothing or at least not killing him is not evil. Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

The murderer is the aggressor. By your own admission, he's the bad guy and deserves death more than you, that's why.

Deserves is not an excuse for murder.

But you root for suicide bombers!

In this situation, someone's going to die. It's either the aggressor, or the defender. Why shouldn't it be the aggressor?

[Sokartawi]

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

This is just stupid. "Choose not to be hurt"? You can't just choose not to be hurt when someone you care about dies!

I already did, twice.

[Master of Ossus]

Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

Because he's the fucking murderer and he attacked you. That makes him worse than you are. If you have a choice between saving two people, do you sacrifice the charity worker for the murderer?

[Sokartawi]

But, as usual, you don't subscribe the same to the other Arabs from various countries who flocked there to fight the Americans. Those same are not defending their country and they are interfering with other nations and killing people.

But as usual, you give them a pass.

I'd say that can be considered helping out an ally. But a lot of them have other motives besides that, which is detestable.

[Trogdor]

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

This is just stupid. "Choose not to be hurt"? You can't just choose not to be hurt when someone you care about dies!

I already did, twice.

How do I do that vomit emoticon that's been getting used around the Politics forum?

If you didn't feel even the tiniest bit of distress that someone you care about is dead, the smallest feeling that you'll miss them, I'd say you didn't really care about them.

[Pcm979]

Relatives... Are guilty of caring about someone?! I fucking well hope that was a mistranslation into English, because it's.. Jesus, there aren't any words for it. As someone who recently lost a family member, the only thing I have to say to you is a hearty fuck you and the high horse you rode in on!

[Sokartawi]

Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

Because he's the fucking murderer and he attacked you. That makes him worse than you are. If you have a choice between saving two people, do you sacrifice the charity worker for the murderer?

I don't lives that aren't mine to sacrifice.

[Sokartawi]

This is just stupid. "Choose not to be hurt"? You can't just choose not to be hurt when someone you care about dies!

I already did, twice.

How do I do that vomit emoticon that's been getting used around the Politics forum?

If you didn't feel even the tiniest bit of distress that someone you care about is dead, the smallest feeling that you'll miss them, I'd say you didn't really care about them.

Me feeling bad and full of sorrow would not help the deceased person in any way.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't lives that aren't mine to sacrifice.

Oh, of course not. If you had a loaf of bread and saw a starving kid on the street, it wouldn't be your responsibility to feed him since he should've been feeding himself.

[Trogdor]

Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

Because he's the fucking murderer and he attacked you. That makes him worse than you are. If you have a choice between saving two people, do you sacrifice the charity worker for the murderer?

I don't lives that aren't mine to sacrifice.

But this person will likely kill again if you don't stop him! You will have sacrificed their lives, albeit indirectly. The fact that you yourself didn't pull the trigger is just a shield for your cowardly morals.

[Lord Poe]

Maybe asking nicely would work just as good as tossing...

Would you at least accept a helping hand overboard?

I would try to stop person A, just not kill him.

I can agree with this. Ok, I'd shoot to wound...

[Trogdor]

Me feeling bad and full of sorrow would not help the deceased person in any way.

Did I ever say it would help them? No. I said that it's impossible not to miss someone who died if you truly cared for them.

[Sokartawi]

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

Pacifist decides to live, instead of die. NO ONE IS HURT.

Face it: the pacifist is equally responsible if they have an opportunity to survive their ordeal and they choose not to.

That's not possible since he had to kill the murderer to live, so someone gets hurt.

The idea that you can assign responsibility based on INaction is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Let's envision this scenario:

A railroad runs off the track, killing a few people and injuring others. In addition, serious economic harm is done to society since it relied on the contents of the railroad and its continued operation.

The people responsible for safety at the RR didn't do their jobs, and forgot that they needed to maintain the frickin' tracks. When called on it, they say they weren't responsible because if they did nothing (ie. didn't do their jobs), then everyone was obviously hurt. The true culprit, they say, is the engineer on the crashed train. If HE hadn't have shown up to work that day, the train never would've gone over the dangerous tracks and never would've crashed. Thus, no one would've been hurt.

You cannot seriously assign relative guilt or innocence on such a farcical system of reasoning. People who have an opportunity to do something and choose not to do it are responsible for their INactions, as well as their actions.

They signed a contract that would pledge action to their company, plus honoring the contract is not immoral. The murder victim has not signed anything, and killing another person is an immoral action.

Besides which, saying that the murderer is MORE responsible for the relatives being hurt does nothing to defeat the argument that the pacifist bears SOME responsibility for choosing to die. The pacifist's actions directly led to harm to other innocents, who literally did nothing wrong. The pacifist bears SOME responsibility for their pain, even if the murderer bears more. You have completely failed to rebut the point.

But the victim does not undertake a hurtful action, thus he is not responsible, and he does not have any alternatives besides dying, since killing another person is not allowed.