The morality of being a soldier

[Lord Poe]

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

No.

You're wildly inconsistent. If killing one aggressor will save the lives of 5 innocents, you shouldn't have a problem with that. If killing is the ONLY way to stop the death of those 5 innocent people, and PRESERVING their lives, it is perfectly justified. Your inaction that allows those 5 people to be murdered makes you a killer by proxy.

[Trogdor]

I am having a very difficult time figuring out how you recouncil your "the aggressors are the bad guys and deserve to die no matter what" attitude with you "all killing is wrong" attitude.

[Trogdor]

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

Someone will get hurt no matter what happens in this scenario, so I ask, for the second time, why shouldn't it be the aggressor, who is, by your own logic, the bad guy, who dies?

[Sokartawi]

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?

Hard to say what exactly I'd be doing since I haven't been in such a situation. Maybe take care of the wounded, maybe refuse to cooperate, maybe just walking away, maybe acting along but making sure I don't hit anyone, but shooting enough to draw attention to myself so the enemy might shoot me instead of someone you'd consider more valuable.

[Sokartawi]

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

Someone will get hurt no matter what happens in this scenario, so I ask, for the second time, why shouldn't it be the aggressor, who is, by your own logic, the bad guy, who dies?

Because that would make me a murderer, and I would be responsible for his death, and killing is an evil action.

[DPDarkPrimus]

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

No.

I repeat: How can you sleep soundly at night, much less have the audacity to claim moral superiority, when you would rather have five innocent lives sacrified than stopping one guilty person.

[Trogdor]

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

Someone will get hurt no matter what happens in this scenario, so I ask, for the second time, why shouldn't it be the aggressor, who is, by your own logic, the bad guy, who dies?

Because that would make me a murderer, and I would be responsible for his death, and killing is an evil action.

And yet you've rooted for the suicide bombers in Iraq over the invading Americans. In other words, it's okay when OTHER people do it, but not you, because you're too morally upright.

[Sokartawi]

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

No.

You're wildly inconsistent. If killing one aggressor will save the lives of 5 innocents, you shouldn't have a problem with that. If killing is the ONLY way to stop the death of those 5 innocent people, and PRESERVING their lives, it is perfectly justified. Your inaction that allows those 5 people to be murdered makes you a killer by proxy.

My initial post already said I don't consider it that way. The guy that kills 5 people is a murderer, not me, and I have no intention of becomming one by murdering him.

[Sokartawi]

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

No.

I repeat: How can you sleep soundly at night, much less have the audacity to claim moral superiority, when you would rather have five innocent lives sacrified than stopping one guilty person.

Because I did not kill anyone if the murderer kills them. I am not responsible for the actions of the murderer.
I would be responsible for murder if I kill the guy.

0 or 1 murder count, easy choice for me.

[Aaron]

Hard to say what exactly I'd be doing since I haven't been in such a situation. Maybe take care of the wounded, maybe refuse to cooperate, maybe just walking away, maybe acting along but making sure I don't hit anyone, but shooting enough to draw attention to myself so the enemy might shoot me instead of someone you'd consider more valuable.

Ever hear of fraticide? I wager thats what would happen to you if you were in a warzone. If your refusing to fight and help out your buddies, there's no way your going to get away with it. You'll be court-martialed for sure, and your comrades would probably beat the shit out of you too.The military will defeinetly go after you if they find out you've been actively avoiding firing on the enemy.

Being a medic would allow you to practice your cowardice and not engae in killing anyone, but you may have to use force to defend your patients. And then were would you be? Would you kill to defend your wouded comrades?

[Rogue 9]

No.

I repeat: How can you sleep soundly at night, much less have the audacity to claim moral superiority, when you would rather have five innocent lives sacrified than stopping one guilty person.

Because I did not kill anyone if the murderer kills them. I am not responsible for the actions of the murderer.
I would be responsible for murder if I kill the guy.

0 or 1 murder count, easy choice for me.

So you're simply that selfish, that you would rather let other people die than take the initiative to save them if it risks sullying your hands. Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

[Trogdor]

By your logic, if you saw someone drowning, and could throw him a lifeline but didn't and he died, it wouldn't be your fault. That's just sickening.

[Sokartawi]

Hard to say what exactly I'd be doing since I haven't been in such a situation. Maybe take care of the wounded, maybe refuse to cooperate, maybe just walking away, maybe acting along but making sure I don't hit anyone, but shooting enough to draw attention to myself so the enemy might shoot me instead of someone you'd consider more valuable.

Ever hear of fraticide? I wager thats what would happen to you if you were in a warzone. If your refusing to fight and help out your buddies, there's no way your going to get away with it. You'll be court-martialed for sure, and your comrades would probably beat the shit out of you too.The military will defeinetly go after you if they find out you've been actively avoiding firing on the enemy.

They can go after me all they want.

B

eing a medic would allow you to practice your cowardice and not engae in killing anyone, but you may have to use force to defend your patients. And then were would you be? Would you kill to defend your wouded comrades?

No.

[Sokartawi]

By your logic, if you saw someone drowning, and could throw him a lifeline but didn't and he died, it wouldn't be your fault. That's just sickening.

Throwing a lifeline is not an evil action, while killing a person is.

[Petrosjko]

Being a medic would allow you to practice your cowardice and not engae in killing anyone, but you may have to use force to defend your patients. And then were would you be? Would you kill to defend your wouded comrades?

That's the soul of why this discussion cannot be resolved. Most everyone else here thus far has outlined any number of scenarios in which they feel that killing is a valid answer.

Sokartawi believes that no killing is ever justified. (Outside of consensual deaths such as euthanasia.)

It's a fundamental moral difference, and no scenario anyone here can present will sway her from this.

[Sokartawi]

I repeat: How can you sleep soundly at night, much less have the audacity to claim moral superiority, when you would rather have five innocent lives sacrified than stopping one guilty person.

Because I did not kill anyone if the murderer kills them. I am not responsible for the actions of the murderer.
I would be responsible for murder if I kill the guy.

0 or 1 murder count, easy choice for me.

So you're simply that selfish, that you would rather let other people die than take the initiative to save them if it risks sullying your hands. Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

You could see it that way yes.

[Lord Poe]

My initial post already said I don't consider it that way. The guy that kills 5 people is a murderer, not me, and I have no intention of becomming one by murdering him.

What you consider is irrelevant. You are a murderer by proxy if you allow the death of 5 if you could have prevented it with the death of one. You're just as evil. You are a murderer by proxy if you allow the death of ONE if you could have prevented it with the death of one. You're just as evil as Killer A.

[Sokartawi]

My initial post already said I don't consider it that way. The guy that kills 5 people is a murderer, not me, and I have no intention of becomming one by murdering him.

What you consider is irrelevant. You are a murderer by proxy if you allow the death of 5 if you could have prevented it with the death of one. You're just as evil. You are a murderer by proxy if you allow the death of ONE if you could have prevented it with the death of one. You're just as evil as Killer A.

Only from your point of view. From my point of view you're only guilty if you pull trigger.

[Trogdor]

eing a medic would allow you to practice your cowardice and not engae in killing anyone, but you may have to use force to defend your patients. And then were would you be? Would you kill to defend your wouded comrades?

No.

Those wounded comrades of yours would be your allies. You've given the terrorists who came from outside of Iraq a pass because they're helping their allies. Your logic is growing more and more full of "it's okay so long as I don't have to do it."

I believe you honestly don't think any of us here besides you would feel guilty about killing someone to save others. Well you know what, I probably would feel guilty about killing someone, about making myself a murder, even if that person was the scum of the Earth. But I'd still do it anyway, because it IS the right thing to do and because inaction would be the greater wrong there.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We may not be able to change your opinion, Shakkara. But know this. The two boards you have been a part of, despite their differences, have both summarised their views of you as a selfish and frankly ignorant individual who has likely led too sheltered a life to fully comprehend her views in the real-world.

I don't care if I nor the others can change your way of reasoning (and I use that term in its loosest possible form), but we will all now see you as a person who quite simply has forfeited their humanity in the pursuit of a single and ultimately futile ideal. Like true communism or anarchy, what you propose simply would not work without a radical alteration in the human psyche. Not going to happen, not now, not in ten years, not in ten ice ages.

My advice to you is to wake up and smell the coffee, dispose of the rose tinted glasses, headphones and braincase and observe the fact that 99.99% of mankind, nay, of organisms would do the opposite to what you propose.

[Trogdor]

By your logic, if you saw someone drowning, and could throw him a lifeline but didn't and he died, it wouldn't be your fault. That's just sickening.

Throwing a lifeline is not an evil action, while killing a person is.

But would you agree that negelecting this person would be evil?

[Sokartawi]

eing a medic would allow you to practice your cowardice and not engae in killing anyone, but you may have to use force to defend your patients. And then were would you be? Would you kill to defend your wouded comrades?

No.

Those wounded comrades of yours would be your allies. You've given the terrorists who came from outside of Iraq a pass because they're helping their allies. Your logic is growing more and more full of "it's okay so long as I don't have to do it."

I didn't give the foreigners a pass that said the fact that terrorists kill people is justified.

I believe you honestly don't think any of us here besides you would feel guilty about killing someone to save others. Well you know what, I probably would feel guilty about killing someone, about making myself a murder, even if that person was the scum of the Earth. But I'd still do it anyway, because it IS the right thing to do and because inaction would be the greater wrong there.

From your perspective.

[Sokartawi]

By your logic, if you saw someone drowning, and could throw him a lifeline but didn't and he died, it wouldn't be your fault. That's just sickening.

Throwing a lifeline is not an evil action, while killing a person is.

But would you agree that negelecting this person would be evil?

Undecided.

[Aaron]

Ever hear of fraticide? I wager thats what would happen to you if you were in a warzone. If your refusing to fight and help out your buddies, there's no way your going to get away with it. You'll be court-martialed for sure, and your comrades would probably beat the shit out of you too.The military will defeinetly go after you if they find out you've been actively avoiding firing on the enemy.

They can go after me all they want.

Fair enough. At least you'd be standing up for what you believe in.

No.

You fucking scumbucket. You wouldn't even defend your wounded comrades? You understand that these people are wounded and depending on your protection? Personally I hope that if you ever found yourself in combat that your comrades would frag you. Being killed by the enemy is too good for you.

You need to go home and rethink your life. Your views indicate a serious case of moral cowardice. I won't even touch on your evident lack of emotional detachment towards your friends and family. I sincerely hope you never breed/adopt. This kind of stupidy does not need to be passed on.

[Trogdor]

Throwing a lifeline is not an evil action, while killing a person is.

But would you agree that negelecting this person would be evil?

Undecided.

Spare me, you just realize that if you say yes, then I'll compare it to the murderer scenario because they're both instances where inaction will result in the death of innocents.