The morality of being a soldier

[Falkenhayn]

Entertainment, interest, quest for satisfaction? I've been enjoying this thread so far in the sense that I'm amazed at some of the things people believe.

Especially when their isn't a shred of rationality to support it, and in the face of page after page of well reasoned rebuttals.

[Beowulf]

The problem is that no "non-lethal" method is really acceptably reliable. About 5% of people are just unfazed by pepper spray, and more are still able to continue fighting, albeit at reduced effectiveness if they get sprayed with the stuff. You also can't use it when the wind is blowing back at you, and if you try to use it in the rain most of it will never reach the target. Tasers are also sufficiently prone to fail that the manufacturer of the one most widely used by law enforcement advises that it should only be employed when lethal force is available as a back up should it fail.

Sometimes, the only reliable option you have is to resort to lethal force.

And sometimes even lethal force can't work fast enough. Example from Gen Supatra would be somebody taking a .50 round in the chest and keeping on coming. There are multiple examples of a guy on PCP getting shot and still coming.

[Sarevok]

Trying isn't good enough.

So you are saying police should never use force ?

That's the problem, humans should stop fearing them, that way they will be powerless.

Right, if the Polish stopped fearing the Germans they would have succesfully stopped the invasion.

Dont forget that it is part of human nature to fear force. Nothing can change that. And even something could being not afraid wont save you from being killed.

Because I base my beliefs on something, while you just pulled it out of your ass. Even though I cannot provide scientific evidence it doesn't mean I just made it up because I was bored. You did.

What evidence does your belief have that makes it superior to my belief ?

Incomparable, like the 21 year old / get a drink example.

Dont avoid the question.

No, it gives it the possibility to be right. You fail to understand this don't you?

Anything can exist by that logic. So should we seriously believe Gagoyles, Leprechauns etc exist ?

Since we haven't seen it before, and lots of people die within 10 days, this guy's rare. Doesn't mean he's the only one.

He could have conditioned himself to do that. Just because I dont have evidence does not mean I am wrong.

No one of us COULD be right, idiot.

Newsflash moron - without evidence there is no way to determine who is right and thereford both are wrong.

[Perinquus]

The problem is that no "non-lethal" method is really acceptably reliable. About 5% of people are just unfazed by pepper spray, and more are still able to continue fighting, albeit at reduced effectiveness if they get sprayed with the stuff. You also can't use it when the wind is blowing back at you, and if you try to use it in the rain most of it will never reach the target. Tasers are also sufficiently prone to fail that the manufacturer of the one most widely used by law enforcement advises that it should only be employed when lethal force is available as a back up should it fail.

Sometimes, the only reliable option you have is to resort to lethal force.

And sometimes even lethal force can't work fast enough. Example from Gen Supatra would be somebody taking a .50 round in the chest and keeping on coming. There are multiple examples of a guy on PCP getting shot and still coming.

Nevertheless, lethal force is far more reliable than any non lethal means. If I see an armed man and he won't put the gun or knife down when I order him to, I'm going to shoot him. I will not waste so much as a second trying to employ pepper spray or tasers. It's too risky. I mean to go home at the end of my shift. I could still lose a gunfight, it's happened to officers before, but I've got a far, far better chance meeting a potentially lethal threat with lethal force than I have with any other means.

[Mange]

Self Defense is allowed in just about all the States that I have knowledge of. It is down right immoral to demand that a citizen die rather than preserve themselves from criminal assualt.

Since Sokartawi is from Sweden (as I am, although it seems to me as if she is living in a dream world) I thought I should mention a legal case that has some implications on the self defense issue.

An elderly man living in the Swedish city of Karlstad got tired of the recurrent burglaries (a total of seven) in his summer house. When the house was burglarized for the eighth time, he had armed himself with a shotgun (the gun control is strict in Sweden). When he one night was woken by sounds, he grabbed the shotgun and managed to briefly overpower the burglar that had invaded his property. However, during the struggle, the owner of the house suffered a heart attack and the gun went off and shotgun pellets hit the burglar in the arm. The burglar was arrested and sentenced to community service. The elderly owner of the house was found guilty of aggravated assault and was sentenced to one year in prison and also to pay damages to the burglar. An appeals court lessened the sentence for the house owner to eight months in prison, but the house owner still must pay 100,000 Swedish kronor (about $14,080) in damages to the burglar (plus the costs of the trials).

That's the twisted Swedish legal system for you, and to me this case reminds me alot of Sokartawi's thought process.

[Kurgan]

Well it does depend on that.

If it's legal to torture prisoners, and yet you have a moral objection to it, should you violate your conscience in favor of obeying orders?

It's the moral vs. legal thing specifically. And maybe the war itself is "illegal!" It's not an easy question to answer, since it depends on what your moral values are and how you are evaluating it.

[Kurgan]

Oops, forgot...

Since we are talking about the MORALITY of being a soldier, not the legality. Obviously you "have to" do certain things to "win" a war, and these may be legal, illegal, moral, or immoral, whatever. The question is about an individual and how they judge and react to the situation.

One could say that being a soldier is simply immoral. Or being a soldier isn't immoral but certain things a soldier may DO may be immoral. And therein comes the choices a soldier would have to make.

[Admiral Valdemar]

And sometimes even lethal force can't work fast enough. Example from Gen Supatra would be somebody taking a .50 round in the chest and keeping on coming. There are multiple examples of a guy on PCP getting shot and still coming.

Indeed. There is even an FBI report detailing the fact that even high-calibre shots to the head, heart or other vitals is not a one-shot putdown with a guarantee. Bleeding to death can take a time, the heart is a damn strong organ and even the brain can work with holes in it.

[CmdrWilkens]

I continue to live because I am hoping for a miracle that changes things.

Why it's a waste:
1) Lack of freedom. Can't live where I want (at least not legally) because everything is owned by someone, and if I want to buy someone out they ask outrageous prices.

Wait so you're sayign you should have the right to displace people already living somewhere simply because you want to live there? Wow that's about the most egotistical reason for calling life a waste I've ever heard.

2) People are idiots/sheep. Neighbour has a new kitchen? So what? Why do YOU want a new one too all of the sudden? Not happy with what you got? Then why did you buy it in the first place, idiot...

People are idiots/sheep and you wonder why people might have a dim view of your philosophy? People are complex creatures of emotions, needs, wants, and desires which mix and melt in interactions with each other. That some people seek to simplify this complexity by conforming to trends is a matter of seeking happiness through reduction in decision making. I'd hardly call that being an idiot even if I'd rather experience all of life. I certianly won't criticize people who want to conform to ease their lives because if it makes them happy why have distaste or are you honestly angry that some people can find happiness in a way that you can't?

3) Fashion. Yeah really. What is so cool about black suits and ties? They look fucking ugly, and I can't imagine they are very comfortable either. Sure you can wear what you want, but if you REALLY had a choice I wouldn't think so many people would wear that crap.

Life is a waste because of suits and ties? You honeslty have to be shitting me if one of your top reasons for objecting to the modern world is the freaking clothes a guy wears? Dear lord you need a psych evaluation if you think our society is worthless because of that...and fo the record I look damn good in a suit and its comfortable too.

4) Lack of purpose. Money doesn't really interest me much because besides computer stuff (I don't buy the most expansive fastest stuff by the way) and the occasional warhammer models there isn't much that I want to buy. Except a house in the middle of nowhere perhaps, but that cost a lot more. Status doesn't interest me either, I don't feel the need to compare myself with anyone else. So in short, capitalism like this is not a very nice place for me since it offers me very little.

So life is worthless because you have no purpose? I again repeat to you that that is a sad sad outlook on life and I'd suggest that you find something that you enjoy doing and just do it because otherwise you're gonna end up lying in a gutter somewhere. Seriously you needs some help or a big bear hug because that's a very sad outlook on life.

Also some other reasons but can always spew more later.

Feel free to tell me but if the first three reasons are all your objections that's pretty weak and a repitition of the fact that you find your life directionless just reinforces the validity of my suggestion that you get yourself a big bear hug and a trip to a counselor.

[Sokartawi]

He'll run out of bullets eventually.

And then his knife will get dull, and he'll run out of hand grenades, and all the while everyone will be so happy that they can't just shoot him and be done with it.
What happens when we run out of cops or even members of our suicide-society?

Game over; please press continue.

And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

How?

I'm sure you can think of something. Full bullet-resistant suits (why not make them look a bit more appealing then the standard blue/black stuff we got ) and shields, vehicles with watercannons, use your imagination.

Well if it ends that way then humans were a worthless species anyway.

You are one fine piece of work, you stupid immature bitch.

Thank you!

[Sokartawi]

Because usable land happens to cost a lot of money no matter where it is.

Dodging yet more questions.

1. What is the going rate on land in the middle of nowhere?
2. Why is that rate ridiculous? Why is it more than can be fairly charged?

Probably due to the world being overpopulated that usable land is so expensive. I took a look around though, and I could afford buying some usable land in France of Spain though. Maybe look at that emigration stuff... Not that I'm very fond of either country, but can look around a bit more.

Lot of people don't even know how to cook something, yet they still want the new kitchen just to show off.

And, again, how does this hurt you? Do you not realize that new kitchens have utility even for people who aren't going to use them?

Why waste money on something you're not going to use? I haven't bought new clothing besides underwear and maybe a t-shirt this year either... Already have enough clothing. (yes I know some people like to dress differently more often and need some more clothing due to that, but then they have a reason for needing it, which I do not, so I'm not buying it just for the sake of showing off)

Because there is no ground with it I can do with as I please, thus I cannot be self-sufficient.

How do you define self-sufficiency?

In the best case, being able to grow own food and generate own electricity and so on.
Lacking that, economic independance, producing enough stuff yourself that one can trade for all the things one needs, without being dependant on a job or having to travel too far from home.

I just said that, idiot. I don't like seeing masochist sheep, like relious fundies wouldn't like seeing people having sex in public all the time.

Do you not see how both attitudes are patently ridiculous?

I wouldn't like seeing people having sex either, you might, but I prefer not to.

You've harped and whined about how people choose to care when other people die. Why do you choose to be annoyed by seeing masochistic sheep?

Wow, what a purpose...

You have a purpose. Your criticism is irrelevant.

Gaining material wealth isn't that important to me. It won't last forever anyway.

[Perinquus]

And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

How?

I'm sure you can think of something. Full bullet-resistant suits (why not make them look a bit more appealing then the standard blue/black stuff we got ) and shields, vehicles with watercannons, use your imagination.

Yes, because every officer who has to respond to all the myriad different situations he encounters in the course of his duties conveniently has all this stuff available to him at all times. He walks around full time in a bullet proof suit (which doesn't even exist, because it's not possible to make such a thing practical to wear - if it were, don't you think S.W.A.T. teams would have them?), and when he goes into that fifth floor walk-up apartment to deal with the violent domestic argument taking place there, he'll just bring along his vehicle with its water cannon in case the deranged husband charges him with a knife.

[Sokartawi]

Sokartawi what kind of neighbourhood do you live in?

None of your business.

Sounds like you're just pissed that all these stupid people around you are able to experience their wants and dreams.

They're not even experience THEIR wants and dreams, they are just doing something because someone else has got it too. I have no problem at all with people that have more then I do, but I hate to see people waste their time and money on meaningless things, especially since they don't get happier with it and only want more more more as if they're addicted to buying crap.

You also sound like you want to put minimum effort into life and get maximum results.

Wouldn't everyone want that if they could?

You say you don't own your house, yet mention you don't owe society a thing since you paid taxes for a few years, how the hell did that house get there? There's a crapload of infrastructure that you would never be able to break even with, you merely pay for it's maintenance.

They were paid for by others before me, and I don't have to pay for them entirely since I'm not using all of it for eternity, just a part, for a limited amount of time, so I only have to pay for the piece I use, which I do, so I owe them nothing.

You should really visit Africa or something, and see what happens when a person is allowed to impose their ideals on their society.

You mean when the Europeans screwed everything up?

[Sokartawi]

How?

I'm sure you can think of something. Full bullet-resistant suits (why not make them look a bit more appealing then the standard blue/black stuff we got ) and shields, vehicles with watercannons, use your imagination.

Yes, because every officer who has to respond to all the myriad different situations he encounters in the course of his duties conveniently has all this stuff available to him at all times. He walks around full time in a bullet proof suit (which doesn't even exist, because it's not possible to make such a thing practical to wear - if it were, don't you think S.W.A.T. teams would have them?), and when he goes into that fifth floor walk-up apartment to deal with the violent domestic argument taking place there, he'll just bring along his vehicle with its water cannon in case the deranged husband charges him with a knife.

Those violent things are very very rare in a normal society. That they happen a lot in a country like the US isn't my problem.

[Sokartawi]

Hope I don't like like I'm sniping here or something, but what about "non lethal" or ("less than lethal") methods of incapacitating or capturing violent people?

Agreed that there are only so many ways to stop an assault tank or fighter jet that's attacking you, but if we're just talking an invididual with a hand weapon...

The police force vs. army is an important thing.

Well I'll stop now, because I admit that I do not have the time or desire to read through 39 pages of this...

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?

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

[Sokartawi]

He'll run out of bullets eventually. And of course the cops will be equipped better to deal with these guys.

You've been watching too many movies.

I seriously doubt that, since I watch almost no TV. One hour a week on average, if that...

What makes you think a violent criminal is just going to be expending rounds at nothing? A violent criminal will be shooting at people, if there are no people he won't be shooting. Therefore he won't run out of bullets unless he's been shooting at people and if you give him all the time in the world to shoot at you till he's out of bullets then the chances of a decent person dying are greatly increased.

I'm well aware of that.

[Perinquus]

I'm sure you can think of something. Full bullet-resistant suits (why not make them look a bit more appealing then the standard blue/black stuff we got ) and shields, vehicles with watercannons, use your imagination.

Yes, because every officer who has to respond to all the myriad different situations he encounters in the course of his duties conveniently has all this stuff available to him at all times. He walks around full time in a bullet proof suit (which doesn't even exist, because it's not possible to make such a thing practical to wear - if it were, don't you think S.W.A.T. teams would have them?), and when he goes into that fifth floor walk-up apartment to deal with the violent domestic argument taking place there, he'll just bring along his vehicle with its water cannon in case the deranged husband charges him with a knife.

Those violent things are very very rare in a normal society. That they happen a lot in a country like the US isn't my problem.

In other words, this idiotic little fantasy of yours just popped like a soap bubble the instant it brushed up against reality, and you don't have an answer, so you'll just evade the question.

Those violent things happen all over the world. How convenient for you just to write off everyone who doesn't live within your little charmed circle.

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?

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

Thank you, you've just admitted that you are pontificating on a subject in which you haven't even the tiniest bit of experience, or the least amount of knowledge. What the fuck makes you think for an instant that you have any business advising those of us who do have to deal with such things on how we should do it?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm sure you can think of something. Full bullet-resistant suits (why not make them look a bit more appealing then the standard blue/black stuff we got ) and shields, vehicles with watercannons, use your imagination.

Yes, because every officer who has to respond to all the myriad different situations he encounters in the course of his duties conveniently has all this stuff available to him at all times. He walks around full time in a bullet proof suit (which doesn't even exist, because it's not possible to make such a thing practical to wear - if it were, don't you think S.W.A.T. teams would have them?), and when he goes into that fifth floor walk-up apartment to deal with the violent domestic argument taking place there, he'll just bring along his vehicle with its water cannon in case the deranged husband charges him with a knife.

Those violent things are very very rare in a normal society. That they happen a lot in a country like the US isn't my problem.

LOL define normal please.

For some normal includes RPGs being used as weapons against police so please keep your petty jabs against the US to yourself.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who are being held hostage and those who are trying to take a criminal into custody, etc.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I seriously doubt that, since I watch almost no TV. One hour a week on average, if that...

Whatever, your statement still indicates massive ignorance on the subject.

I'm well aware of that.

Really? Your statements indicate that you're not.

[Darth Wong]

Sokartawi, it seems pretty clear to me that your fundamental problem is simple: you're emotionally dead. You judge others solely by the question of whether they choose to live the way you do, and not by any more sophisticated or far-reaching system of ethical philosophy, never mind an emotional reaction of sympathy.

Or, to put it even more succinctly, you carry no love in your heart for anyone or anything, not even yourself. You will no doubt point out that he who does not love does not hate either, but the same can be said of a footstool. I do not pretend to know what childhood traumas or developmental disorders have left you in this state, but it's sad and you should consider it a problem rather than a point of pride.

[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.

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.

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.

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?

[Sokartawi]

Trying isn't good enough.

So you are saying police should never use force ?

No.

That's the problem, humans should stop fearing them, that way they will be powerless.

Right, if the Polish stopped fearing the Germans they would have succesfully stopped the invasion.

The Germans would have a damn hard time with them then.

Dont forget that it is part of human nature to fear force. Nothing can change that.

Apparantly something changed it for me.

And even something could being not afraid wont save you from being killed.

That doesn't matter.

Because I base my beliefs on something, while you just pulled it out of your ass. Even though I cannot provide scientific evidence it doesn't mean I just made it up because I was bored. You did.

What evidence does your belief have that makes it superior to my belief ?

Doesn't need evidence to be superior.

Incomparable, like the 21 year old / get a drink example.

Dont avoid the question.

The question does not make sense.

No, it gives it the possibility to be right. You fail to understand this don't you?

Anything can exist by that logic.

Yes.

So should we seriously believe Gagoyles, Leprechauns etc exist ?

No.

Since we haven't seen it before, and lots of people die within 10 days, this guy's rare. Doesn't mean he's the only one.

He could have conditioned himself to do that.

Still nice feat that is rare.

Just because I dont have evidence does not mean I am wrong.

Correct.

No one of us COULD be right, idiot.

Newsflash moron - without evidence there is no way to determine who is right and thereford both are wrong.

Newsflash moron - when you do are unable to determine whenever someone is right he is neither right nor wrong.

[Kuroneko]

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.

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.

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.

[Perinquus]

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.

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.

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.

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.