The morality of being a soldier

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-07 04:43pm

Sokartawi wrote:Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does (my definition of murder is killing people without their consent, I have no problem with euthenesia and for some reason killing during duels is acceptable to me to, but killing in war is still murder to me), and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.

so if all soldiers in the war are willing participants, by your logic it's morally acceptable?

I do not believe we're just a meatsack which was given a bunch of genes when created and got sent into the world to screw around and get as much kids as possible. I've had plenty of experiences that indicated to me that there indeed is something as a soul, unfortunately that is no scientific evidence, and you can always use the "you're hallucinating" argument as well. Before you ask, neither I nor my parents are religious.

so you think we have a soul. whoop de fuck. whether we do or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not humanity is violent.

I'm not the kind of person that's eager to exclude anything from being a possiblility.

regardless of how unrealistic or unattainable it might be?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 04:47pm

Sokartawi wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Mindless pacifism is, flatly put, moral cowardice. I can name a dozen situations.. Historical examples or RAR! HIPOTHETICAL SENARIO!'s.. Where a short, sharp act of violence is the sole means to stop far greater evil's from being perpetrated. To shy away from this, to run and hide behind 'Well, uh, violence is bad...' is to allow these evils to run free, under the guise of 'Humanity could get better, really.'.
Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does (my definition of murder is killing people without their consent, I have no problem with euthenesia and for some reason killing during duels is acceptable to me to, but killing in war is still murder to me), and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.

I don't claim that killing during war is morally good. In fact, it is fundamental to the paragraph quoted that it is evil, but a responsible war is one in which the evil of killing the enemy is less than the evil that would come from letting the enemy continue their plans.

Simply declaring 'They're other people, it's not my responsibility' is quite immoral and equally morally cowardly. If you're a coward, fine. But if you are not, and you can stop or reduce the scale of evil, you're pretty fucking bad for not doing anything and running behind 'NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY'. Again, this is a simple observation of objective reality: Humans work because we work together. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge this is another case of moronic ivory tower syndrome.

SirNitram wrote:Humanity won't get better. We are the result of Natural Selection, a method which selects the most inventively brutal species to become dominant, those that can wield their violence against their foes and temper it with enough wisdom not to annihilate themselves. If Humanity reaches the point where it can't temper it's violence, it'll blow itself off the map. If Humanity reaches the point where it tosses away violence, some other species will ascend and slaughter us. That's the way of the world. Those of you who've studied the things bandied about in this forum will understand this. Those of you who are mindless parrots will not.
I do not believe we're just a meatsack which was given a bunch of genes when created and got sent into the world to screw around and get as much kids as possible. I've had plenty of experiences that indicated to me that there indeed is something as a soul, unfortunately that is no scientific evidence, and you can always use the "you're hallucinating" argument as well. Before you ask, neither I nor my parents are religious.

That's nice. I've had experiences too. I'm just smart enough to realize that there might be a reason the vast majority of belief systems don't have a perfectly good being(Christianity included; perfectly good beings don't slaughter the world's population.).

Either way, it means little. Disregard the whole idea of evolution and natural selection. 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.

SirNitram wrote:Screeching and whining about how things SHOULD be when it's impossible to get there is a classic example of Ivory Tower syndrome. And nothing useful ever came from those.
I'm not the kind of person that's eager to exclude anything from being a possiblility.

I can happily exclude things from possibility thanks to a lifetime of seeking to learn about the universe.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-11-07 04:50pm

I hope that everyone in the world would become a pacifist. Then I could take over the world with a butterknife.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 04:50pm

Sokartawi, are you really saying that inaction even in such circumstances as you suggested, is not as bad as action which would save lives?

What if you knew beyond reasonable doubt that your neighbour next door was a terrorist and was planning to bomb, say, a high-rise? Would you allow this to happen so as to avoid the authorities coming down on him like a ton of bricks, or would you really allow ten, twenty, one hundred people or more to be killed simply because "it's not your problem"?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-11-07 04:52pm

Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does (my definition of murder is killing people without their consent, I have no problem with euthenesia and for some reason killing during duels is acceptable to me to, but killing in war is still murder to me), and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.

DO you have ay idea how quickly the human race would slip into fucking anarchy because of this one? I suppose a police officer should allow a woman to be raped and killed, while he watches, because it isnt his responsibility. And I suppose you would sit by and watch as well? Now, lets apply this and take it to its logical conclusion. massive crime, and those who are willing to use force ruling over those to stupid to defend themselves.

Tell me, would you kill someone in self defense? Or would you simply let yourself die.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 04:55pm

Apathy is never an excuse. That way of thinking really has led to the downfall of modern society in many respects. The lack of interaction between neighbours or police and the increase in isolationism has meant a world where selfish behaviour is becoming more readily acceptable and any interference is met with caustic comments.

I'm sure WWII would've been a bit different if we'd just gone that route.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-11-07 04:56pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does, and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A
That you can sleep at night after allowing, yes allowing the murder of five people, dispite you being fully capable of preventing it, disturbs me greatly.

disturbs doesn't quite fit the bill in this case.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 04:56pm

Sokartawi wrote:Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.

Wow, you are without a doubt the best friend of tyrants and murderers everywhere!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 04:59pm

CJvR wrote: Wow, you are without a doubt the best friend of tyrants and murderers everywhere!

Which is deliciously ironic given her stance.

But hey, inaction which means not personally killing lives but leading to lives being lost by other means is perfectly okay. So long as my soul doesn't get bogged down with the blood of those who died from me personally rather than from indirect causes, everyone's happy.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-11-07 04:59pm

Trytostaydead wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does, and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A
That you can sleep at night after allowing, yes allowing the murder of five people, dispite you being fully capable of preventing it, disturbs me greatly.
disturbs doesn't quite fit the bill in this case.

I have to make due with words that exist.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 04:59pm

Beowulf wrote:I hope that everyone in the world would become a pacifist. Then I could take over the world with a butterknife.

I would get a bigger butterknife... and some day someone would build a butterknife big enough to destroy us all!

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 05:00pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does (my definition of murder is killing people without their consent, I have no problem with euthenesia and for some reason killing during duels is acceptable to me to, but killing in war is still murder to me), and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.
so if all soldiers in the war are willing participants, by your logic it's morally acceptable?

Well that's the case with duels, the participants are willing. In a war, the agressor is willing, and the defendant does not have to be, which is I usually label the invading country as 'eeeevil'...

However in war the goal usually is to obtain another nation's territory and interfering with it's populance, which I oppose.

Darth_Zod wrote:
I do not believe we're just a meatsack which was given a bunch of genes when created and got sent into the world to screw around and get as much kids as possible. I've had plenty of experiences that indicated to me that there indeed is something as a soul, unfortunately that is no scientific evidence, and you can always use the "you're hallucinating" argument as well. Before you ask, neither I nor my parents are religious.
so you think we have a soul. whoop de fuck. whether we do or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not humanity is violent.

To me it basically means there is no such thing as human nature, and people always have a choice. Of course people get indoctrinated by society, and todays society is arguably a result of social darwinism, however I'd say it's still your fault if you choose for indoctrinated values instead of your own concience.

Darth_Zod wrote:
I'm not the kind of person that's eager to exclude anything from being a possiblility.
regardless of how unrealistic or unattainable it might be?

[/quote]
Short answer: Yes. The long answer would steer even this topic completely off-topic.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 05:01pm

I dunno. Maybe I'm unique; Maybe my long running interest in Valhalla and Warrior's Heaven has warped me to view that taking up the moral stains of committing evil, to prevent others from suffering from evil acts, is somehow an act of virtue and noble sacrifice.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-07 05:05pm

SirNitram wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
SirNitram wrote: War is just violence on a larger scale, fucktard.
War is violent, but violence encompasses more, and everyone with a brain sees that. Why can't people be violent, while countries don't go to war? Seeing how we HAVEN'T evolved to not needing war, I'd LOVE to see you try making the leap.
Argument from ignorance, sounds like. 'PROVE WE CAN'T!'

The OP pines for no war, not violence. So SHOW how a non-warring species must also be non-violent. If we DID evolve to the point of not needing war, what kind of social and diplomatic mechanisms would be in place to help enforce that evolution? You don't know, so I would once again LOVE to see you try proving a violent species MUST be warring too.

What, are you moronic enough to think there'll ever be a point where people won't use violence to enact political change? How will you enact this, mass brainwashing? I'd take up arms against that, and I'm mildly pacifistic.
It was your supposition that we evolve to not needing violence you stupid prick.
Show me another way to get there, you ignorant pile of cuntslime. And try to avoid the fallacy you made in the earlier paragraph.

Translation: do my proof for me. You stupid prick.

As for another species, it could be something that develops alongside us. It could just be another branch of humanity. Or it could be a species that's willing to take the long view and roam around star systems for mileenia just to spread out so far they can't get killed in one disaster. Yes, I beleive aliens exist. The confirmation of complex sugars in a fucking nebula kind of sealed it for me.
That isn't YOUR EVOLVED SPECIES, is it, you stupid fuck.
Hey, retard-boy. Show me a way to get rid of war without violence and you'll have a tiny, miniscule point until you meet the fact that as long as violence is conceivable, people can conceive of using it to further political ends, thus, war.

That's not for me to show, shithead. See above.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-07 05:07pm

SirNitram wrote:I dunno. Maybe I'm unique; Maybe my long running interest in Valhalla and Warrior's Heaven has warped me to view that taking up the moral stains of committing evil, to prevent others from suffering from evil acts, is somehow an act of virtue and noble sacrifice.

One cannot make right with a weapon, but one can prevent future wrongs.

And in the protection of one's family and one's country, it is often a regrettable necessity.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 05:09pm

BoredShirtless wrote:The OP pines for no war, not violence. So SHOW how a non-warring species must also be non-violent. If we DID evolve to the point of not needing war, what kind of social and diplomatic mechanisms would be in place to help enforce that evolution? You don't know, so I would once again LOVE to see you try proving a violent species MUST be warring too.

Gods, I can explain it a half-dozen times, and it just bounces off your WoI. As long as violence is conceivable, people will conceive of using it to further their agendas. Once their agendas are political, it becomes a war.

Maybe you're just the failed fusion of cuntslime and cockdribble. Here's what war is, for your semigrown brain:

war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

1.1. is quite possible as long as violence is conceivable! So again, unless you somehow remove violence, you don't remove war. Again, demanding I prove your point, or Sokatwai's point, that you can have no war but not no violence, is again a fallacy. Go the fuck away you ignorant trolling shitstain, or actually show how one can have violence without war.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 05:12pm

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)

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 05:14pm

Sokartawi wrote: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'?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-07 05:15pm

Sokartawi wrote: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 supposing the individuals in question had been someone you actually cared about like a family or a friend, you'd still sit back and stop in him as non violent a way as possible?

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 05:15pm

SirNitram wrote:I dunno. Maybe I'm unique; Maybe my long running interest in Valhalla and Warrior's Heaven has warped me to view that taking up the moral stains of committing evil, to prevent others from suffering from evil acts, is somehow an act of virtue and noble sacrifice.

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

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-07 05:15pm

edit: the family and friends being the victim, and the individual in question being the attacker.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 05:15pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Sokartawi wrote: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 supposing the individuals in question had been someone you actually cared about like a family or a friend, you'd still sit back and stop in him as non violent a way as possible?

Wouldn't make a difference to me.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 05:16pm

Sokartawi wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I dunno. Maybe I'm unique; Maybe my long running interest in Valhalla and Warrior's Heaven has warped me to view that taking up the moral stains of committing evil, to prevent others from suffering from evil acts, is somehow an act of virtue and noble sacrifice.
But back in the days of the vikings they used swords and people still engaged in honorable combat

You obviously failed history class. Honor was between Vikings; those people they raided did not get the same niceties.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-11-07 05:17pm

Hey, BS, do you claim that War is inherently different from fighting in and of itself?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 05:19pm

Sokartawi wrote: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

Well that is perhaps possible in a small scale and as long as the other fellow isn't armed but when the size of the conflict grows such PC solutions rapidly become impossible and you are left with the option of doing something seriously violent or do nothing.