The morality of being a soldier

[Gustav32Vasa]

O.M.G. With all this who wins?

[LadyTevar]

Are we STILL arguing this?!

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Very few creatures in nature will not fight for survival when threatened with death. We are no exception. I agree with Robert A. Heinlein's definition of morality. It must be rooted in survival behavior.

Wouldn't arguing what makes us survive be naturalist? Or something.

[Petrosjko]

Are we STILL arguing this?!

It's aliiiiiiiiiiive.

[Sokartawi]

Are we STILL arguing this?!

Would make a nice bet to see how much pages we can fill.

[Enforcer Talen]

with a woi, you can go on forever.

[Sokartawi]

Why is he a homocidal maniac in the first place and why didn't anyone prevent this from happening? That maniac is a victim too, normally a person would not go murdering, so either this person has a disorder, or had some traumatic experience, both things should have been noticed and he should have had help for that.

While this might be the case, a proper moral code should be able to deal with suboptimal situations. You're effectively saying that once we have erred (as you implicitly place the blame for the creation of the murderer on the society), we cannot even partially salvage the situation, and must leave it alone, even if the act of correcting it is a lesser evil than what that situation would lead to if left alone.

Well can still interfere, but not in an 'evil' way. And I have the opinion that in the short run acting in an 'evil' way may seem to benefit society most, but that in the long run it won't.

Because that lowers society to the level of murderers and society is supposed to be above that. Killing a murderer only indicates that society finds it acceptable to use violence, and sets an entirely wrong example.

Interesting as an explanation of your position, but as an argument, you're simply begging the question. Of course it would be murder if you start with the assumption that all killing is murder.

Yes I already gave my definition a couple of times in this thread, let's give it again: Murder = killing people without their permission.

Because we would do evil if we kill him. We would be like the murderer ourselves. How can you say you do not like what murderers do when you allow people to murder murderers?

What I find disturbing is that effectively, your position values your own karma higher than the lives of those fifteen innocent victims, and you value the high cost to the would-be murderer's karma lower than the (comparative) smaller cost to your own. It is an incredibly selfish moral system. Not only that, but it is curious that you would apparently be willing to suffer in this life or even sacrifice it in order to correct an injustice (the cop/bullet scenario being indicative of this), you are completely unwilling to suffer in the next life by having your karma tarnished, even if it would correct a grave injustice.

Well that is because I do not consider myself responsible for the evil actions someone else does, however I am responsible for mine, so I will try to limit those.

[Kuroneko]

Well can still interfere, but not in an 'evil' way. And I have the opinion that in the short run acting in an 'evil' way may seem to benefit society most, but that in the long run it won't.

Even in the case that such actions may result in the destruction of society itself? With nuclear arsenals, a psychopath in the right position may be able to do arbitrarily high amount of damage.

Yes I already gave my definition a couple of times in this thread, let's give it again: Murder = killing people without their permission.

As I've said, it is an explanation of your position, but not an argument.

Well that is because I do not consider myself responsible for the evil actions someone else does, however I am responsible for mine, so I will try to limit those.

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?

[Aaron]

Sokartawi:

You told me that your grandparents are from The Netherlands and thet your Grandfather was held by the Germans before escaping with the resistance's help. How can you be against soldiers when your families mother country was liberated by Canadian soliders? I'm sure that you have relatives that remained in The Netherlands after your family escaped and that they owe their freedom to my Grandfather and his comrades.

And your father was a soldier who served in the Signals branch. Was he a heartless killer too? Was he scum like the rest of us?

[Sokartawi]

Sokartawi:

You told me that your grandparents are from The Netherlands and thet your Grandfather was held by the Germans before escaping with the resistance's help. How can you be against soldiers when your families mother country was liberated by Canadian soliders? I'm sure that you have relatives that remained in The Netherlands after your family escaped and that they owe their freedom to my Grandfather and his comrades.

And your father was a soldier who served in the Signals branch. Was he a heartless killer too? Was he scum like the rest of us?

You forget about the other part of my family that was from Germany. In and around Dresden to be more specific.

[Sokartawi]

And your father was a soldier who served in the Signals branch. Was he a heartless killer too? Was he scum like the rest of us?

He was drafted and managed to pull enough shit to get himself kicked out after a year while he was supposed to do two years due to the branch he was in.

[Aaron]

You forget about the other part of my family that was from Germany. In and around Dresden to be more specific.

So your just going to use Dresdden as an example of why you hate soldiers? What about the guys that saved your family in The Netherlands? But too you their all the same, one engages in what you consider an illegal/evil act and we're all the same.

How does your father feel about your aditude towards soldiers? He was one, I think he'd be right pissed at you.

[Aaron]

He was drafted and managed to pull enough shit to get himself kicked out after a year while he was supposed to do two years due to the branch he was in.

So cowardice in your family isn't limited to you. Very nice.

[Sokartawi]

Well can still interfere, but not in an 'evil' way. And I have the opinion that in the short run acting in an 'evil' way may seem to benefit society most, but that in the long run it won't.

Even in the case that such actions may result in the destruction of society itself? With nuclear arsenals, a psychopath in the right position may be able to do arbitrarily high amount of damage.

Yes I know those are the risks.

Yes I already gave my definition a couple of times in this thread, let's give it again: Murder = killing people without their permission.

As I've said, it is an explanation of your position, but not an argument.

Well I don't stand a good chance to convince anyone with arguments anyway, so I'm pretty limited to explaining at this point.

Well that is because I do not consider myself responsible for the evil actions someone else does, however I am responsible for mine, so I will try to limit those.

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.

[Sokartawi]

He was drafted and managed to pull enough shit to get himself kicked out after a year while he was supposed to do two years due to the branch he was in.

So cowardice in your family isn't limited to you. Very nice.

I find it an act of courage to stand up for peaceful beliefs.

[Sokartawi]

I can hardly believe this. Why should a homicidal maniac ever be allowed the opportunity to kill so many in the first place?

Why is he a homocidal maniac in the first place and why didn't anyone prevent this from happening? That maniac is a victim too, normally a person would not go murdering, so either this person has a disorder, or had some traumatic experience, both things should have been noticed and he should have had help for that.

Bullshit. People are to some extent driven to do some things by their environment. However, many people suffer unjust treatment, abuse, poverty, discrimination, etc. and they do not all become killers. At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own actions.

Look out everyone, because according to Sokartawi, when some deranged lunatic knifes you to death because his salisbury steak told him too, it's your fault.

You're overreacting here, of course people are responsible for their actions, but the assumption that a criminal could NEVER have benifited society is wrong, if events had turned different his 'problem' might never have manifested.

And would you be willing to step up and be one of these cannon fodder cops who have to play bullet catcher until he runs out of ammunition?

Yes of course.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I think that you are simply saying this in order to avoid being revealed as a complete hypocrite. After all, you earlier stated:

I'm not risking any life, these people have their own free will and it's up to them to risk their life.

which seems to indicate you have no intention of risking your life in this fashion.

You're ripping my statement completely out of context here, I think you should reread what I replied to.

And how does it serve either justice or the greater good to allow a man to live by sacrificing say, fifteen good, decent officers, some of whom will have wives or husbands, and children who will be anguished beyond words at their deaths; as opposed to simply killing this single individual, who is obviously not someone with whom peaceful people can ever hope to coexist?

Because that lowers society to the level of murderers and society is supposed to be above that. Killing a murderer only indicates that society finds it acceptable to use violence, and sets an entirely wrong example.

This is the black & white fallacy. All violence is wrong. Bullshit. Violence in self defense is not only not wrong, it's a survival trait hardwired into us by millions of years of evolution. Very few creatures in nature will not fight for survival when threatened with death. We are no exception. I agree with Robert A. Heinlein's definition of morality. It must be rooted in survival behavior. That may not be everyone's idea of moral, but you would have a hard time arguing that what is moral is rooted in behavior that is contrary to survival. By this definition, it is moral to fight for your own survival. It is moral to fight to defend your family, or other people from harm. It is immoral to do nothing and allow them to be killed.

While a lot of people are animals, there are also humans. What seperates the two? The first follow instincts and indoctrination, and the second think and are their own master.

Why is it more moral to allow the fifteen to die, and spare the one who is, for lack of a better word, evil? Why is it more moral to allow all the grief, anguish and sorrow the loved ones of the fifteen will experience, and to remove all their potential from society, rather than eliminate the one who will most likely not be mourned, and who is too maladjusted ever to fit into society, let alone contribute to it?

Because we would do evil if we kill him. We would be like the murderer ourselves. How can you say you do not like what murderers do when you allow people to murder murderers?

No we would not be like the murderer ourselves. Are you truly unable to see the distinction between justifiable homicide and murder? Killing in self defense, or the defense of others is not murder. Murder is wanton killing, self defense killings are not. When some maniac walks into a school building and starts capping students, and someone with a gun puts a bullet in his head, these are not morally equivalent acts. If you think they are, you have a seriously broken moral compass.

fine.

[Perinquus]

Bullshit. People are to some extent driven to do some things by their environment. However, many people suffer unjust treatment, abuse, poverty, discrimination, etc. and they do not all become killers. At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own actions.

Look out everyone, because according to Sokartawi, when some deranged lunatic knifes you to death because his salisbury steak told him too, it's your fault.

You're overreacting here, of course people are responsible for their actions, but the assumption that a criminal could NEVER have benifited society is wrong, if events had turned different his 'problem' might never have manifested.

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.)

Yes of course.

You will forgive me, I trust, if I think that you are simply saying this in order to avoid being revealed as a complete hypocrite. After all, you earlier stated:

I'm not risking any life, these people have their own free will and it's up to them to risk their life.

which seems to indicate you have no intention of risking your life in this fashion.

You're ripping my statement completely out of context here, I think you should reread what I replied to.

I read it the first time. You were asked:

The problem with using non-lethal weapon against those with lethal weapons is this;

What happens if it doesn't work? How many lives are you willing to risk just to take this violent offender alive?

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

This is the black & white fallacy. All violence is wrong. Bullshit. Violence in self defense is not only not wrong, it's a survival trait hardwired into us by millions of years of evolution. Very few creatures in nature will not fight for survival when threatened with death. We are no exception. I agree with Robert A. Heinlein's definition of morality. It must be rooted in survival behavior. That may not be everyone's idea of moral, but you would have a hard time arguing that what is moral is rooted in behavior that is contrary to survival. By this definition, it is moral to fight for your own survival. It is moral to fight to defend your family, or other people from harm. It is immoral to do nothing and allow them to be killed.

While a lot of people are animals, there are also humans. What seperates the two? The first follow instincts and indoctrination, and the second think and are their own master.

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.

[Aaron]

I find it an act of courage to stand up for peaceful beliefs.

Purposely getting yourself kicked out of the military after you've been drafted isn't courage it's treason.

His country needed him and he betrayed them.

[frigidmagi]

Young lady, you constantly claim that if we're only unafraid of the Nazis, Soviets and Osamas of the world that somehow we will beat them without a single violent act. This is foolish.

The Nazis and Soviets shared a name for peacful protestors, axle grease.

The Osamas of the world prey on those who can not or will not resist, Lack of force only encourages them.

Condemning the world to the rule of murders and madmen is not moral, it is foolish and cowardly. For non violence to work, the people you are using it on must actually care about your well being in the first place, or there must be those who care enough to use force backing you and watching.

[Darth Wong]

Kuroneko nailed it. Sokartawi's ethical system is intrinsically based on selfishness. it's all about her karma, her responsibility, how something reflects on her, whether something can be blamed on her, etc. There is no "big picture" there; the rest of the world factors into her belief system only insofar as it affects her standing in her value system.

[Sokartawi]

I find it an act of courage to stand up for peaceful beliefs.

Purposely getting yourself kicked out of the military after you've been drafted isn't courage it's treason.

His country needed him and he betrayed them.

The country does not have the right to force him into service in the first place.

[Aaron]

The country does not have the right to force him into service in the first place.

Bullshit. If the country can't fulfill it's defense requirements with volunteers than they have the right to draft. The fact that Sweden still employs the draft implies that the majority of the populace approves. The majority of Europe and Scandinavia employed the draft unitll recently. With the approval of their populace.

Face it, if your father pulled his shit in wartime, he'd be hung.

[frigidmagi]

Actually Kendall he'd be shot.

[Sokartawi]

Young lady, you constantly claim that if we're only unafraid of the Nazis, Soviets and Osamas of the world that somehow we will beat them without a single violent act. This is foolish.

The Nazis and Soviets shared a name for peacful protestors, axle grease.

The Osamas of the world prey on those who can not or will not resist, Lack of force only encourages them.

Condemning the world to the rule of murders and madmen is not moral, it is foolish and cowardly. For non violence to work, the people you are using it on must actually care about your well being in the first place, or there must be those who care enough to use force backing you and watching.

First of, what Osama is doing is a reaction, not an action. A reaction to 150 years of brutal oppresion of the Arab nations, first by the British and now by the Americans. I've just come to my computer after I've watched a documentary on the BBC of the British occupation of Yemen 40 years ago, and quite honestly, my blood is a boiling a bit right now. As one of the British soldiers said: We could charge half our company for murdering innocents, but we're too busy with all the war crimes from the previous wars 70 years ago.

[Aaron]

Actually Kendall he'd be shot.

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