Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: What about combat engineers, cooks, etc? They're soldiers too.
I'd disagree with you on the naming of these folks, while I don't agree with supporting the war effort, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with cooking but the term 'soldier' would surely necessitate combat, the point at which it becomes immoral.
Quote:What about the majority of soldiers who miss their target? They have committed no murder -- can they be held accountable for an act they did not commit?
Well the action they undertook, shooting at others, would be wrong regardless of whether they were 'good enough' with their weapons or lucky enough to hit the target. This is simply a case of moral luck, as in the famous example of the inebriated drivers, if one kills by the same act that another does not, they are of no diminished responsibility for the action they took.
Quote:What about disaster relief, where the military is used to deploy supplies and assist?
Admittedly, this is a very honourable and good thing to do, yet this is peripheral, if somebody kills another person and then gives food to the hungry they are not absolved of their former crime.
Quote:I think your system ignores every subtlety of the military.
Perhaps, but the subtleties do not overrule the generalities, which is what I would condemn, so I hardly feel that the good they have done would go anywhere near far enough to make up for the atrocities of war. Yet it is not untrue that war creates more evil men than it may destroy, so we may not be entirely truthful in stating that their roles are good.
Quote:They're more than just thugs and guns -- they're a distinguished institution with laws, regulations and a history of ejecting 'unsuitable' candidates (to the point of abuse). But when you look even at that last piece, you see they'd rather have better quality whenever they can get it.
This isn't a personal criticism of people who become soldiers but rather of the occupation of being a soldier, the people are not, in my view, immoral until they don the mantle of soldier. Admittedly, the process does produce people who are good at what they do, but it is the 'what they do' that i disagree with, not who they are.
Quote:They contribute more than murder, magnitudes more. And you should recognize that and not paint them all with the criminal brush of the very few.
I never argued that they contribute nothing more, yet there is more evil in murder than there is goodness in the other contributions, however this is beside the point. What I wished to explain was that, irrespective of their other deeds, the act of killing others (or attempting to do so, as discussed earlier) is wrong and from my viewpoint there is nothing that may justify that. Thus those who do so are, and yet again I must stress in my opinion, immoral. I'm not so disposed as to be close-minded about this but it seems to me that there is no way around it as the unifying aspect of a soldier is that they fight wars and [at least attempt] to kill people.
I'm sorry if you're offended by this but if you are then we're at a fundamental disagreement and there is little i can do to change that.
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
June 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm (This post was last modified: June 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm by Tempus.)
(June 8, 2012 at 10:29 am)liam Wrote: What I wished to explain was that, irrespective of their other deeds, the act of killing others (or attempting to do so, as discussed earlier) is wrong and from my viewpoint there is nothing that may justify that.
There's situations where killing is necessary in order to prevent greater harm, as unpalatable as that may be. If you've got a country in central Europe annexing its neighbours left and right there's only so many options before you either concede to their rule or resist.
Armies of different nations differ in what they do. That is to say some are just defensive, some engage in foreign assistance in addition to their defensive capacity. Foreign assistance from military forces can take non-violent forms. A person in the military can have combat training (i.e. be a "soldier") as well as qualified with other skills. For example, they could assist in reconstruction efforts in country X while defending civilians from country X's rebels or even serve in country Y in a totally non-violent capacity despite having combat training.
Consider a guy that goes on a rampage down town in Everycity. He's armed to the teeth and has made it clear there will be no negotiations. What do you do? Shoot his hands off? You often don't have time to mess about in such situations (or, in some cases, there's little chance of precision shots due to dense crowds, low visibility, etc) with civilians about, not to mention your fellow law enforcers lives in danger. This sort of thing can happen on an international or global scale. Yes, there are warning signs, and yes, if only this and that were done in the killer's or country's youth / history such tragedy could've been avoided. Unfortunately sometimes people inherit or are forced into a situation where diplomacy has failed.
Personally I'm strongly against war, foreign intervention, conscription and even voluntary enrolment in the army. That being said, each scenario needs to be assessed individually. An unwavering rule such as "we must never kill" is flawed in its general rationale as well as its specific dictate.
(June 6, 2012 at 2:07 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I'm a big fan of the German system. Civil service or military service, you get to choose, but it must be service to the State.
I like to delude myself into thinking that it forces everyone into considering that any war might involve all of them, and thus must be a last resort, not a first.
They seem to reach the last resort before ever contemplating the existence of the first resort.
Tempus Wrote:There's situations where killing is necessary in order to prevent greater harm, as unpalatable as that may be. If you've got a country in central Europe annexing its neighbours left and right there's only so many options before you either concede to their rule or resist.
A very subtle Godwin. Nice.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Quote:I'd disagree with you on the naming of these folks, while I don't agree with supporting the war effort, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with cooking but the term 'soldier' would surely necessitate combat, the point at which it becomes immoral.
Huh? Is this an either/or or all or nothing proposition? Because I am glad I am not speaking German right now, and even the Germans living today are glad Hitler did not win.
Fight or flight will always be part of evolution. Conflict in all of biological life will happen. While we can try to reduce it, it will always be to some extent unavoidable.
(June 8, 2012 at 10:29 am)liam Wrote: What I wished to explain was that, irrespective of their other deeds, the act of killing others (or attempting to do so, as discussed earlier) is wrong and from my viewpoint there is nothing that may justify that.
There's situations where killing is necessary in order to prevent greater harm, as unpalatable as that may be. If you've got a country in central Europe annexing its neighbours left and right there's only so many options before you either concede to their rule or resist.
(...)
Consider a guy that goes on a rampage down town in Everycity. He's armed to the teeth and has made it clear there will be no negotiations. What do you do? Shoot his hands off? You often don't have time to mess about in such situations (or, in some cases, there's little chance of precision shots due to dense crowds, low visibility, etc) with civilians about, not to mention your fellow law enforcers lives in danger. This sort of thing can happen on an international or global scale. Yes, there are warning signs, and yes, if only this and that were done in the killer's or country's youth / history such tragedy could've been avoided. Unfortunately sometimes people inherit or are forced into a situation where diplomacy has failed.
Personally I'm strongly against war, foreign intervention, conscription and even voluntary enrolment in the army. That being said, each scenario needs to be assessed individually. An unwavering rule such as "we must never kill" is flawed in its general rationale as well as its specific dictate.
The solution is not to shoot a man's hands off, regardless of what the consequences are it is still wrong to shoot a man. The armed man himself is incredbily immoral in his attempts on the lives of people but it would be to an even greater degree that i would condemn this behaviour. The main problems that I encounter when trying to view something consequentially are thus:
-We have no foresight into the consequences or their consequences and it seems ignorant to make moral judgements on expectations and not actual understanding.
-To say that 'x is wrong, to stop x we must perform x' smacks of contradiction and the only way to truly remove this element is to completely abhor it in all it's forms, lest we merely perpetuate it.
-The Sorites paradox occurs in some sense in consequentialism, for if we say that one measure is morally correct then we may say that something of exact same moral incriment is correct and there is no real boundary for the moral/immoral. Furthermore, this pre-supposes degrees of 'rightness', an absurd concept).
There are more but to post them all would be unnecessary until they are required.
Quote:Because I am glad I am not speaking German right now, and even the Germans living today are glad Hitler did not win.
Fight or flight will always be part of evolution. Conflict in all of biological life will happen. While we can try to reduce it, it will always be to some extent unavoidable.
You seem to be missing the fundamental part of what i was saying, I am not supposing that one group of soldiers are wrong, but rather the whole institution of warmongering. You are, I'm assuming, claiming that soldiers are necessary to defend the country from other countries. Yet this, as previously discussed, is contradictory. To say that soldiers are right as they protect us from soldiers who would kill us &c would overlook the point that soldiers kill people. Furthermore, what justification is there in saying that 'our' murder is right as it prevents 'their' murder?
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
Quote:The solution is not to shoot a man's hands off, regardless of what the consequences are it is still wrong to shoot a man.
Name me any sane human with a gun who could shoot someone to stop them from killing their child would not. Remember I SAID SANE.
It is not wrong to defend yourself. If evolution didn't contain the fight mechanism our species nor life at all would have evolved.
I'm pretty sure that I AM legally sane, at least I have not received any notification to the contrary. One does not simply abandon one's principles.
Evolution also contains the rape, steal and murder faculties but those aren't good. Once again we see that nature is not the defining factor for what is moral, thus we cannot consider the natural order to be the paramount moral determinant.
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
Quote:One does not simply abandon one's principles.
Is violence a moral means to an end,as a principle? Sometimes. Is war moral,in principle? No, I do not believe so. So what? I need to respond to what is,no to the way I would like things to be.
When it comes down to personal survival, I am not not willing to sit on any moral high horse,from which I will be shot off, becoming very dead.
Are soldiers immoral, in killing others in war? A profound moral question for which I have no answer and for which there is no consensus. The question of whether this person or that is a soldier is a semantic quibble and no true Scotsman fallacy. (and reveals a risible ignorance of the army its culture)
Above all,morality is a survival tool,based on pragmatism;is is subjective and constantly changing.
June 9, 2012 at 3:16 am (This post was last modified: June 9, 2012 at 3:36 am by Tempus.)
(June 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm)liam Wrote:
(June 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Tempus Wrote:
There's situations where killing is necessary in order to prevent greater harm, as unpalatable as that may be. If you've got a country in central Europe annexing its neighbours left and right there's only so many options before you either concede to their rule or resist.
(...)
Consider a guy that goes on a rampage down town in Everycity. He's armed to the teeth and has made it clear there will be no negotiations. What do you do? Shoot his hands off? You often don't have time to mess about in such situations (or, in some cases, there's little chance of precision shots due to dense crowds, low visibility, etc) with civilians about, not to mention your fellow law enforcers lives in danger. This sort of thing can happen on an international or global scale. Yes, there are warning signs, and yes, if only this and that were done in the killer's or country's youth / history such tragedy could've been avoided. Unfortunately sometimes people inherit or are forced into a situation where diplomacy has failed.
Personally I'm strongly against war, foreign intervention, conscription and even voluntary enrolment in the army. That being said, each scenario needs to be assessed individually. An unwavering rule such as "we must never kill" is flawed in its general rationale as well as its specific dictate.
The solution is not to shoot a man's hands off, regardless of what the consequences are it is still wrong to shoot a man. The armed man himself is incredbily immoral in his attempts on the lives of people but it would be to an even greater degree that i would condemn this behaviour. The main problems that I encounter when trying to view something consequentially are thus:
-We have no foresight into the consequences or their consequences and it seems ignorant to make moral judgements on expectations and not actual understanding.
Oh, we have no foresight into what the person who in my example will do? Even after he told us, then followed through with his actions? I think in that particular example it's reasonable to assume he will continue to kill. Not all consequences, ours or others, can be foreseen. This doesn't mean that we can't reasonably say anything about the future actions of others. You don't have time to read someone's biography while they're killing people. You didn't actually address the problem either, you side stepped it. What is the correct course of action? To allow him to continue to kill as he has already done? Let me note that the rationale here isn't that he should be killed because he's killed others, but rather that he needs to be prevented from killing others. I don't think such choices are always clear, but in particular circumstances certain courses of action can justifiably be ruled out, such as standing by and doing nothing as a man randomly kills people in a highly populated area.
(June 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm)liam Wrote: -To say that 'x is wrong, to stop x we must perform x' smacks of contradiction and the only way to truly remove this element is to completely abhor it in all it's forms, lest we merely perpetuate it.
Perhaps if you phrase it like that. What I think was implied quite heavily in my previous post is that an actions "rightness" is affected by the context it's performed in. I'll return to this point in a moment, but first I'm going to clarify what I mean by "right" to reduce any chance of confusion.
What I call "right" is short hand for "the correct action to perform to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the most people possible". My definition of "right" is not to be confused with desirable circumstances. I might desire no one to be killed, for example. Nonetheless in order to achieve happiness for the most people it may sometimes be that taking down the person going on a rampage down town will be the move most conducive to maintaining a happy society. In this particular case, culpability also factors in. A person down town about to murder five people (let's say they've made it clear they will) is culpable for the deaths of those five people, whereas a healthy individual in a waiting room adjacent to a ward containing five patients in need of five different organ transplants is not. If you ignore culpability, then yes, you will end up with absurd conclusions like "killing a person willing to murder five people is equivalent to stealing the organs from a healthy person to save the lives of five patients". In the former case, the killer has a direct role in whether they live or die, whereas in the latter the patient is unrelated and not at fault for the patients' conditions. Notice too that culpability is derivative from the value of happiness. Societies in which there is no culpability will become less happy. I must also stress that it's not "oh, person X is responsible for murder, therefore it's ok to kill them" - it's not an eye for an eye mentality. Culpability is used to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty to help prevent situations like the killing of an innocent person for their organs from occurring.
*Inhales*
So, what's wrong with your summary of my opinion that, "x is wrong, to stop x we must perform x"? It's simplistic, much like your own conclusions I responded to. Notice that X can be replaced with "Imprisoning someone against their will (the action formerly known as 'X') is wrong, to stop people being imprisoned against their will we must imprison people against their will." Are you against the imprisonment of criminals who imprison others? I'm advocating a more nuanced "rule" (or maybe "guideline" is more accurate). I would phrase it more like this:
"X is wrong. Stopping X is desirable, but not always achievable without committing X. In circumstances where performing X will prevent greater X from occurring, X is permissible, providing it is also congruent with value Y."
Your rule was too simple. The one I've proposed above, while still perhaps flawed, is much more flexible and takes into account more factors. In our case X might represent the action of causing harm (more specifically the act of killing). Value Y would be happiness or "rightness" as defined further above.
(June 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm)liam Wrote: -The Sorites paradox occurs in some sense in consequentialism, for if we say that one measure is morally correct then we may say that something of exact same moral incriment is correct and there is no real boundary for the moral/immoral. Furthermore, this pre-supposes degrees of 'rightness', an absurd concept).
I prefer relative judgements, such as "more right", rather than just "right"; i.e., it is more right to not kill than it is to kill a single person; it is more right to kill a single person than let a million people suffer radiation poisoning over a period of several months after which they die. You will encounter a sorites paradox if you say things are either X or not X. This is to my knowledge anyway. I only just gave myself a crash course in the sorites paradox ten minutes ago.
