The morality of being a soldier

[Petrosjko]

But back in the days of the vikings they used swords and people still engaged in honorable combat

Oh spare me the fucking historical romanticism.

In matters of life and death, everyone cheats. This bullshit about swords and swordfighters somehow elevating combat to a higher plane quite likely has never been around a knifefight.

And if you're contrasting it to nondiscriminate bombing, let's not forget that in those days villages were burned, civilians enslaved, and women were generally the property of the victors.

Warfare at its best is barely constrained by any form of protocol or honorable conduct, and it was no different in those days than now.

[SirNitram]

But back in the days of the vikings they used swords and people still engaged in honorable combat

Oh spare me the fucking historical romanticism.

In matters of life and death, everyone cheats. This bullshit about swords and swordfighters somehow elevating combat to a higher plane quite likely has never been around a knifefight.

And if you're contrasting it to nondiscriminate bombing, let's not forget that in those days villages were burned, civilians enslaved, and women were generally the property of the victors.

Warfare at its best is barely constrained by any form of protocol or honorable conduct, and it was no different in those days than now.

That being said, it'd be nice to envision war between volunteer-only forces against only other volunteer-only forces. A sort of Command And Conquer-esque world where the best way to cripple the opposition would be to destroy their(Completely militarized, of course!) construction bays and then wear them down, soldier to soldier.

Unfortunately, barring some vastly more powerful group declaring total war a one way ticket to Instant Sunrises across your country, it ain't happening.

[Petrosjko]

That is to say 'anybody who espouses this bullshit about swords and swordfighters... etc,"

Really should use that preview button more.

[Sokartawi]

I'm disregarding the rest of your post for now because of the clarification of my reaction I gave, if I still should answer something please ask the question again.

Now you just have to realize that if even a few people don't follow this pacifism, you're screwed, as they can conceive of violence and can conceive of using it to further their own ends.

I realize that's a possibility, but I don't mind.

[NecronLord]

Last I checked, adding the smilies : at the end of one's post generally meant that it wasn't to be taken entirely seriously. What with the winking and laughing out loud.

[Sokartawi]

Tell me, would you kill someone in self defense?

No.

Or would you simply let yourself die.

Yes.

[Petrosjko]

That being said, it'd be nice to envision war between volunteer-only forces against only other volunteer-only forces. A sort of Command And Conquer-esque world where the best way to cripple the opposition would be to destroy their(Completely militarized, of course!) construction bays and then wear them down, soldier to soldier.

Unfortunately, barring some vastly more powerful group declaring total war a one way ticket to Instant Sunrises across your country, it ain't happening.

One can find very interesting accounts of the so-called 'War without Hate' that took place between the Brits and the Germans in Northern Africa during WWII. It was made possible by the fact that the forces involved were largely regular military, the land being fought over was mostly nobody's home turf, and there was a general lack of civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

[SirNitram]

I'm disregarding the rest of your post for now because of the clarification of my reaction I gave, if I still should answer something please ask the question again.

Now you just have to realize that if even a few people don't follow this pacifism, you're screwed, as they can conceive of violence and can conceive of using it to further their own ends.

I realize that's a possibility, but I don't mind.

Ah. So in addition to vast moral cowardice and selfishness, you're also irresponsible, refusing to care about the massive harm and horrors that could come from your ideals.. All just from the inherent structure of your personal morality system. While it may be evil to slay a man, it is far less evil to slay a man in defense of others than to sit back and go 'Well, we could stop them, but it'd require killing them, so we'll just sit back and let them do as they please'.

[SirNitram]

That being said, it'd be nice to envision war between volunteer-only forces against only other volunteer-only forces. A sort of Command And Conquer-esque world where the best way to cripple the opposition would be to destroy their(Completely militarized, of course!) construction bays and then wear them down, soldier to soldier.

Unfortunately, barring some vastly more powerful group declaring total war a one way ticket to Instant Sunrises across your country, it ain't happening.

One can find very interesting accounts of the so-called 'War without Hate' that took place between the Brits and the Germans in Northern Africa during WWII. It was made possible by the fact that the forces involved were largely regular military, the land being fought over was mostly nobody's home turf, and there was a general lack of civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

There have always been occasions of less-horrific wars, perhaps just enough to keep hope alive that someday we'll find a way to do it for real. But I still find it vastly unlikely without massive social changes across the entirity of humanity(See my replies to BullShitters constant waffling over why I think that's immoral to enact), or a hugely powerful third party threatening.

[Petrosjko]

Last I checked, adding the smilies : at the end of one's post generally meant that it wasn't to be taken entirely seriously. What with the winking and laughing out loud.

Meh, I might have overreacted, conceded. It's a personal pet peeve of mine because over the years I've gotten mighty damn tired of arguing with people who think that the use of edged weapons somehow ennobles the act of killing.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well I'm skipping most of what has been posted because I'd rather air my thoughts uncontaminated by views of others. I think I'll start with why I'm a Marine and why I went and fought in a war I don't agree with.

Let me restress that point there because I think it goes a long way towards explaining the genral morality of being in the armed forces of a nation. I disagree in large course both with indiivudal actiosn taken and with the general decision to go to war in Iraq. Many ofmy fellow Marines agree and many disagree with this theory but the end result is that you have a rather divide group of people who noetheless are over there participating in this war. For myself and I feel for many others the reason most soldeirs do their job is a committment to their fellows and to their leaders. The single most neccessarry ingredient to the functioning of the military remains faith in the superior, a grunt fights because he trusts that his fire team leader knows the right thing to do. A fire team leader goes where he needs to because he trusts that his squad leader knows what needs to be done, the squad leader does his job because he trusts the platoon commander,who trusts the company commander and so on. This trust in turn means that for most personnel we do what we do because loss of trust will spell the destruction of the entire structure (and some consequent problems at large). We as sodleirs, Marines, etc, have to tust that if there is a balance sheet that at the end of the day our leaders will bring us towards the positive end of the spectrum.

Someone, before 9/11 actually, asked me if I would fight a war I didn't believe in. I told them yes because I swore an oath and that was to the constitution and thus the people of the United States. I swore that I would follow the roder and directions of those placed over me because I had faith that the American public would, at the end of the day, do the right thing.

Now as to individual acts there certainly can be and have been instances of individuals who act irrespondibly and thus a system of punishment exists to prevent abuse of the power placed in the hands of individual members of a country's armed forces. As a group, however, I feel that any person willing to commit themselves on little more than faith in his government to serve it deserves respect and admiration for an act of great personal courage.

[Knife]

Yeeesh. You go play your new Rome Total War for a bit and this happens.

On Topic, a soldier, like a Policeman or Firefighter or EFR, gets the benifit of the doubt when it comes to respect because he has (in most cases) volunteered for service to his/her fellow citizens. You, as a soldier, are there to serve you're fellow man.

However, as a soldier, it is your duty to do what your told and countries don't always use the soldiers as they should, this is why you should refuse and in fact it is you duty as you serve your fellow citizens, to refuse illegal orders.

That said, assholes abound in every profession, so its not unreasonable to expect assholes in the military. But the job of soldier does on the general basis seem to be moral in that they are there to serve the public as the defender of them and their nations interests.

As for Sokartawi's postitions on violence, I find it amusing. If it weren't so morbid, it would be amusing to see her in a life and death situation and see how strong her convictions are in the face of natural instincts of survival.

The moral and ethical cowardice to allow 5 people to die because you feel it is wrong to kill 1 is, simply put, amazing.

[Master of Ossus]

Tell me, would you kill someone in self defense?

No.

Or would you simply let yourself die.

Yes.

Yet you refuse to have any respect for people who die to protect their comrades in combat, or to protect their friends or countries. Do you not see the contradiction inherent in your position?

[Knife]

Last I checked, adding the smilies : at the end of one's post generally meant that it wasn't to be taken entirely seriously. What with the winking and laughing out loud.

Meh, I might have overreacted, conceded. It's a personal pet peeve of mine because over the years I've gotten mighty damn tired of arguing with people who think that the use of edged weapons somehow ennobles the act of killing.

Ah, come on. You know its more romantic to die of a sucking chest wound from a hand and a half over a 5.56.

[Petrosjko]

There have always been occasions of less-horrific wars, perhaps just enough to keep hope alive that someday we'll find a way to do it for real. But I still find it vastly unlikely without massive social changes across the entirity of humanity(See my replies to BullShitters constant waffling over why I think that's immoral to enact), or a hugely powerful third party threatening.

I find it heartening that in the current environment nations which have abolished conscription would have a damn hard time bringing it back. A lot of the stupider wars of history would have stalled out if the governments in question could not simply call up more cannon fodder to feed to the grinder. The western trend of moving toward smaller, all-volunteer forces is a major step in the right direction.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Tell me, would you kill someone in self defense?

No.

Or would you simply let yourself die.

Yes.

Wow, so in addition to never taking responsibility for someone else, you will refuse to take responsibility for you own life, and simply allow someone to rape you, kill you, and then eat your body. WIthout resisting. Wow

Can we title her?

[Master of Ossus]

Wow, so in addition to never taking responsibility for someone else, you will refuse to take responsibility for you own life, and simply allow someone to rape you, kill you, and then eat your body. WIthout resisting. Wow

Can we title her?

But don't forget that people are responsible for their own actions no matter what.

[Sokartawi]

Before I reply to the other posts, I'd like to go back to my hypothetical scenario to clarify a few things.

I would probably not just sit and watch while person A murders those people, but would try to stop him either in a non-violent way or possibly in a violent way that does no permanent damage (attitude to this kind of violence still uncertain, at the moment I find it acceptable but I am not sure if I change this in the future)

And if he won't stop if you don't do lasting damage? Just say 'Oh well, I tried, but I'd have to get my hands dirty to save a life, and I won't do that'?

Guess so yes, but if this person is very agressive and I start bothering him I'd probably end up getting killed as well so I don't have to lose too much sleep over the results

[Knife]

Wow, so in addition to never taking responsibility for someone else, you will refuse to take responsibility for you own life, and simply allow someone to rape you, kill you, and then eat your body. WIthout resisting. Wow

Can we title her?

But don't forget that people are responsible for their own actions no matter what.

THe question for her is, are you still responsible for your lack of actions?

[brianeyci]

Wow, so in addition to never taking responsibility for someone else, you will refuse to take responsibility for you own life, and simply allow someone to rape you, kill you, and then eat your body. WIthout resisting. Wow

Can we title her?

In defense of Sokartawi, she may just be ahead of her time. Far, far ahead. Like I mentioned, humanity would have to complete stage 1, or if there are a shitload of hostile aliens in the universe, stage 4, before it even contemplates giving up violence for good. Impractical, but idealistic and on a certain level admirable for sticking to her beliefs.

Sokartawi's just a visionary a few thousand... or million years ahead of her time .

Brian

[Petrosjko]

Last I checked, adding the smilies : at the end of one's post generally meant that it wasn't to be taken entirely seriously. What with the winking and laughing out loud.

Meh, I might have overreacted, conceded. It's a personal pet peeve of mine because over the years I've gotten mighty damn tired of arguing with people who think that the use of edged weapons somehow ennobles the act of killing.

Ah, come on. You know its more romantic to die of a sucking chest wound from a hand and a half over a 5.56.

overreaction status=on: GODDAMN YOU! FUCKING REN-FAIRE ASSHOLE!

/overreaction.

"A parachute not opening, that's a way for a man to die. Getting crushed in the gears of a combine... having your nuts bit off by a labrador, that's how I want to go!"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow, so in addition to never taking responsibility for someone else, you will refuse to take responsibility for you own life, and simply allow someone to rape you, kill you, and then eat your body. WIthout resisting. Wow

Can we title her?

But don't forget that people are responsible for their own actions no matter what.

Because you have a choice to either defend yourself from a brutal sadistic serial killer, or allow yourself, an innocent person, to die a horrible painfull death. ANd of couse, one wouldnt want to get their hands dirty doing an evil thing like defending themselves now would we?

[Master of Ossus]

Because you have a choice to either defend yourself from a brutal sadistic serial killer, or allow yourself, an innocent person, to die a horrible painfull death. ANd of couse, one wouldnt want to get their hands dirty doing an evil thing like defending themselves now would we?

Especially if they were going to do it again to someone else, who was also innocent.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because you have a choice to either defend yourself from a brutal sadistic serial killer, or allow yourself, an innocent person, to die a horrible painfull death. ANd of couse, one wouldnt want to get their hands dirty doing an evil thing like defending themselves now would we?

Especially if they were going to do it again to someone else, who was also innocent.

Because of curse, we arent responsible for the suffering of others, no matter how easy it would be to prevent. Because everyone is responsible for their actions, and only their actions. WIth no duty to defend ourselves, let alone anyone else.

Here is an idea, how about we toss the entire sum of ethical discourse between human beings out the window and allow ourselves to be ruled by murderers and rapists!!!

[brianeyci]

Or that we aren't looking in the right places and times, or that we're not using the right tools. The simplest solution ignores that the evidence for the carbon compounds that head towards life are more common than we thought, and simple fucking probability points to intelligent life developing.

What about the Rare Earth hypothesis then? There are a shitload of factors that have gone into producing humanity, and if the only type of intelligent life is our type of life, then it is improbable for intelligent life to develop. So improbable that we may be the only intelligent lifeforms in our galaxy.

Gods, the Neo-Communist propaganda hurts to listen through. Why should an intelligent fucking machine be more moral than a human, retard? Furthermore, why would humanity willingly submit to slavery of another race, much less one they know is flawed(Or do you just blind yourself to the errors machines and especially computers have?).

The intelligent machine doesn't have to be more moral than a human being. It just has to have a directive to "protect human life" or some bullshit like that, obviously far more specific. Maybe a few directives. It would be programmed to follow these directives to the letter, unable to disable them.

We would not "willingly submit to another race". It would be gradual. Machines would take over every facet of our lives, until we realized that machines are an undisputable part of our lives and we have to create a mother intelligence to rule over the machines.

You're right. We could be dead.

BTW, since you obviously weren't capable of figuring it out: The reason you can't have a single government across star systems is time-lag. How do you enforce laws when you can't even know they're being broken for hours, days, weeks, or years?

Who said anything about a government? If faster-than-light travel is impossible, the only way for colonization to spread around and the galaxy to be explored is through generational ships and machines which travel across the galaxy. Machines would not be affected by impatience or lack of will -- if they were programmed to reproduce themselves, explore the galaxy, and go around seeding humanity, they would do it. The "laws" or rules would be enforced by the local machines who would keep humanity from hurting one another, letting us live in relative comfort and safety.

Brian