Soldiers life threatened by his own side.

[liam]

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.

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?