Are soldiers murderers?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
The topic's kinda personal, so to avoid going on an angry rant to no avail, I'll just say that I'm of the impression that I think you've got to earn what you think about a soldier. By that I mean this, nay, I challenge this...
Can you walk up to a veteran of some military and tell them what you really think about what they do? Do that, take their composed or rash response, then you have earned the right to say that comment to others.
This works both ways: you don't get to protest a war via personal insults to soldiers, such as shouting at rallys "you fight a racist war!", then tell everyone else that "I support the soldiers, just not the war", and on the flip side, you don't get to quietly thank a soldier and turn around and bitch about what they do on internet forums.
If you support your soldiers, tell them, and tell the world. If you don't, tell them and tell the world. Don't mix it up just because you don't have the spine to put your money where your mouth is like they do whenever they're deployed in hostile theaters.
Can you walk up to a veteran of some military and tell them what you really think about what they do? Do that, take their composed or rash response, then you have earned the right to say that comment to others.
This works both ways: you don't get to protest a war via personal insults to soldiers, such as shouting at rallys "you fight a racist war!", then tell everyone else that "I support the soldiers, just not the war", and on the flip side, you don't get to quietly thank a soldier and turn around and bitch about what they do on internet forums.
If you support your soldiers, tell them, and tell the world. If you don't, tell them and tell the world. Don't mix it up just because you don't have the spine to put your money where your mouth is like they do whenever they're deployed in hostile theaters.
Holy hell, I post that and nobody posts?! Wow, nice... very sad, but nice I guess... 
Well, as one who grew up around soldiers and have repeatedly expressed my deep respect, in a nutshell, I think it's wrong to call soldiers murderers for doing their jobs, especially in today's asymmetric warfare environment.
Well, as one who grew up around soldiers and have repeatedly expressed my deep respect, in a nutshell, I think it's wrong to call soldiers murderers for doing their jobs, especially in today's asymmetric warfare environment.
Soldiers are hired guns, they kill for somebody else (decision makers, politicians). They do it for money, or in some countries as a compulsory duty. If the majority of any country are thinking parallel to their decision makers, actions are justifiable in terms of law or politics. Similar perception mechanism works in international arena.
Agreed. Soldiers are state hired mercenaries. They kill because that is their job. It is what they are trained to do.
there will always be crazyies, wackys, a flasher or two, schizos, and blind followers. Multiply the number of them on a global scale and
SOLDIERS ARE JUSTIFIABLE
this justification has really stood up to the tests of time. Hard to find things so necessary. And even harder to take things so necessary and say they are immoral.
SOLDIERS ARE JUSTIFIABLE
this justification has really stood up to the tests of time. Hard to find things so necessary. And even harder to take things so necessary and say they are immoral.
If killing someone to take the cash register is murder, then killing someone to take their territory or oil is also murder.
If killing a spouse out of revenge or dislike is murder, then killing the leader of another country out of revenge or dislike is also murder.
If killing a police officer to escape is murder, then killing the soldier of another country to escape is also murder.
From a coherently ethical standpoint, either all are permitted or all condemned.
If killing a spouse out of revenge or dislike is murder, then killing the leader of another country out of revenge or dislike is also murder.
If killing a police officer to escape is murder, then killing the soldier of another country to escape is also murder.
From a coherently ethical standpoint, either all are permitted or all condemned.
I believe defense and senseless killing are in different categories, what about you?
One is permitted, and one is condemned right?
edit: I think overgeneralizing all examples into some sort of mono-system is ridiculous FYI. Maybe I'm mistaken though by what you mean (but at first glance it seems quite barbaric).
The question then becomes: which is more important, ethical coherency or survival? If you answer 'survival', then it logically follows you believe it is permissible to shoot a policeman to escape apprehension for a capital crime. In other words, you have chosen the 'all is permitted' position - at least for yourself. If you then apply a different standard to others you are an amoral hypocrite.
Or maybe some of them consider it a personal duty?
You know, like providing a defence for their loved ones.
No more than an executive is a whore, or anyone else who takes pay for doing a job.
They kill because it's a national decision.
And generally try to avoid it (as a policy). Killing (and war) are viewed as last resorts.
I am hypocritical, but am not amoral.
If you gave me the choice between ethical coherency and survival, I would choose survival. The same survival rights that anyone has. That does not include killing police officers by the way.
Why does it not logically follow that if I want to survive I should shoot an officer? Because ethics aren't absolute. They change depending on circumstances.
And let me clear up what I mean by hypocritical. All humans are hypocrites.
Sorry for the long post, but I feel it necessary to explain my position.
So if ethical coherency and survival are at odds, then where does our right to life end? And it follows, what about the other inalienable rights? (I am using the US Declaration of Independence here to define "inalienable rights", namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
If Life is an inalienable right, then it follows that you can use any means to guarantee your own survival. But you can't just go do whatever you want because at some point you begin infringing on the rights of others. I can't build atomic bombs in my backyard, because my neighbors wouldn't like it (even though I've never had one go off.)
So are my neighbors infringing on my rights when they say I can't build my own a-bombs. So then are some people's rights more important than others? Basically my right to build an a-bomb is weighed against your right to have peace of mind. Thats not Liberty, that's rule by consensus.
Here's another situation -- say I have some nasty plague, and I need to get to a hospital. Unfortunately, if I get near to your city, you will shoot me. I claim that my right to medical care guarantees me entrance to the hospital, but you claim that your right to be free from contamination gives you license to kill. Whose rights are being infringed on the most?
Here is the key: ethical coherency is not about what you want. Now, I'm not saying you cant go for what you want -- you probably can -- but you have to realize that going for the goodies is just that: going for the goodies. It has nothing to do with ethics. No, ethical coherency comes from being responsible for your own actions. What that means is that I can build my a-bombs, but if I'm not taking the proper precautions, then the government, acting on behalf of the people, can come down and make sure that I DO take precautions, or shut me down if I don't.
The defining condition of adulthood is responsibility. What is the one thing you need to be able to experience that responsibility?
Opportunity. The opportunity to be responsible for yourself -- for your actions. That's all. If you are denied that right, you are not free, and all the other so-called rights are just redundant. Rights are Opportunities, and Opportunities require Responsibility.
Soldiers are held to a higher standard of behavior than that of the normal population. There are many things that are required of Soldiers, far more than simply pulling a trigger. At some point, Soldiers find themselves in a situation where they are given the opportunity to kill another person. It is then that they are required to take responsibility for their choice, whether they pull the trigger or not.
Just like in the above situation, where the government takes issue with the a-bomb in my backyard, they are required by the people to use the authority that they have been granted to ensure the survival and security of the people. Someone is required to be at the cutting edge of that authority -- someone with the training and responsibility to properly handle it.
So if ethical coherency and survival are at odds, then where does our right to life end? And it follows, what about the other inalienable rights? (I am using the US Declaration of Independence here to define "inalienable rights", namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
If Life is an inalienable right, then it follows that you can use any means to guarantee your own survival. But you can't just go do whatever you want because at some point you begin infringing on the rights of others. I can't build atomic bombs in my backyard, because my neighbors wouldn't like it (even though I've never had one go off.)
So are my neighbors infringing on my rights when they say I can't build my own a-bombs. So then are some people's rights more important than others? Basically my right to build an a-bomb is weighed against your right to have peace of mind. Thats not Liberty, that's rule by consensus.
Here's another situation -- say I have some nasty plague, and I need to get to a hospital. Unfortunately, if I get near to your city, you will shoot me. I claim that my right to medical care guarantees me entrance to the hospital, but you claim that your right to be free from contamination gives you license to kill. Whose rights are being infringed on the most?
Here is the key: ethical coherency is not about what you want. Now, I'm not saying you cant go for what you want -- you probably can -- but you have to realize that going for the goodies is just that: going for the goodies. It has nothing to do with ethics. No, ethical coherency comes from being responsible for your own actions. What that means is that I can build my a-bombs, but if I'm not taking the proper precautions, then the government, acting on behalf of the people, can come down and make sure that I DO take precautions, or shut me down if I don't.
The defining condition of adulthood is responsibility. What is the one thing you need to be able to experience that responsibility?
Opportunity. The opportunity to be responsible for yourself -- for your actions. That's all. If you are denied that right, you are not free, and all the other so-called rights are just redundant. Rights are Opportunities, and Opportunities require Responsibility.
Soldiers are held to a higher standard of behavior than that of the normal population. There are many things that are required of Soldiers, far more than simply pulling a trigger. At some point, Soldiers find themselves in a situation where they are given the opportunity to kill another person. It is then that they are required to take responsibility for their choice, whether they pull the trigger or not.
Just like in the above situation, where the government takes issue with the a-bomb in my backyard, they are required by the people to use the authority that they have been granted to ensure the survival and security of the people. Someone is required to be at the cutting edge of that authority -- someone with the training and responsibility to properly handle it.
Last edited:
What are these 'rights' you speak of? Where do they come from, how do you know they exist, how are they enforced, and how are they related to ethics?
You have it confused. I plainly stated that it does logically follow - ie, that an ethical license to kill a human being who is threatening your survival would not be limited solely to criminals-at-law, but would be equally valid for government agents or frankly for any other person whatsoever.
If you can kill for survival (someone about to shoot you) you can kill for other survival-reasons, like for food or shelter. Essentially this belief is predicated upon your own life being more important than those of others.
And what about national survival, like oil? (one's own nation being more important than other nations, etc). Nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with that (it's the law of the jungle), but it is indeed amoral at minimum - cynically varnished howsoever it may be with high-minded, hypocritical rhetoric.
Executives are not trained to whore, nor is it a job description. Soldiers are trained to kill.
What is this 'right to life' you speak of?
So if a neighbour doesn't like something, it is physically impossible? Morally impossible?
They're not infringing on anything unless they physically prevent you doing it - in which case they're simply stopping you doing it in that particular place at that particular time, not forever in everyplace.
I don't use rights as a premise; instead, I would say that both you and the town are exercising self-interest, and they will win.
Ethical coherency comes from being ethically consistent and not having intracognitive dissonance, nor having divergence between beliefs, preaching, and actions.
So majority belief makes right?
When someone is declared non compos mentis they lose their 'adulthood'? What in the hell do they become? You're using non-standard definitions. Adulthood typically refers to sexual maturity, which has precisely zero to do with responsibility, as millions can attest.
So, the opportunity to be responsible requires responsibility. Makes a load of sense.
A higher standard? So if a soldier kills a bunch of people, or carpet-bombs a city, he gets something 'more' than life in prison or the death penalty? Or less?
What do you mean by taking responsibility?
What is 'authority'? And what gives it the ethical license to do things you cannot - like napalm a village, hold someone captive against their will, or take from the income of others?
point-by-point response
Again, the simplest explanation is that as a human being, you are entitled certain things; the first being the right to continue to exist.
More accurately described as "disallowed."
This is exactly what I'm getting to. The government has the responsibility to its populace to enforce the rule of law -- by force, if necessary.
Again, I do not disagree.
And what that implies is that each of us has the responsibility to do so.
I am talking about the government's role in society. The government's entire job is to enforce the will of the populace, as their power is derived from that will.
I concede the point. What I am talking about here though is not physical maturity, but mental and emotional. When someone is declared non compos mentis, they do lose the legal recognition of their personal responsibility.
No, I was restating the prior sentence. Rights=Responsibility=Opportunity. It's a basic to complex thought process, not circular thinking.
Yes, a Soldier is held to a higher standard. Those who act appropriately are honored moreso than civilians (medals, etc), and those who kill unnessesarily during a war are condemned as "War Criminals", a far worse condemnation than simple lawbreaking.
They are required by law and by ethics to take appropriate action, both under orders and in the absence of orders. Those who do not are held accountable by the same government that gave them the opportunity.
Again, governments are given power by the consent of the governed. Therefore, the government will act in the will of the people, or the people will replace it with something they do agree with, and hold accountable those who acted outside their will. As the military recieves its orders from the government, they have the responsibility to act within the consent of the people. When they do, it is considered ethical.
Again, the simplest explanation is that as a human being, you are entitled certain things; the first being the right to continue to exist.
More accurately described as "disallowed."
This is exactly what I'm getting to. The government has the responsibility to its populace to enforce the rule of law -- by force, if necessary.
Again, I do not disagree.
And what that implies is that each of us has the responsibility to do so.
I am talking about the government's role in society. The government's entire job is to enforce the will of the populace, as their power is derived from that will.
I concede the point. What I am talking about here though is not physical maturity, but mental and emotional. When someone is declared non compos mentis, they do lose the legal recognition of their personal responsibility.
No, I was restating the prior sentence. Rights=Responsibility=Opportunity. It's a basic to complex thought process, not circular thinking.
Yes, a Soldier is held to a higher standard. Those who act appropriately are honored moreso than civilians (medals, etc), and those who kill unnessesarily during a war are condemned as "War Criminals", a far worse condemnation than simple lawbreaking.
They are required by law and by ethics to take appropriate action, both under orders and in the absence of orders. Those who do not are held accountable by the same government that gave them the opportunity.
Again, governments are given power by the consent of the governed. Therefore, the government will act in the will of the people, or the people will replace it with something they do agree with, and hold accountable those who acted outside their will. As the military recieves its orders from the government, they have the responsibility to act within the consent of the people. When they do, it is considered ethical.
Says who?
This is an assertion and not an argument.
Why is it alright for the 'government' to take part of your paycheck against your will, and not alright for a majority of people in your household, street, or neighbourhood to take part of your paycheck against your will? What's so magical about government that it is allowed to do things that you can't do?
Again, what are these rights, specifically? And how do you know that we have them?
I wouldn't consider a trinket like a mass-produced ribbon which costs twenty cents to make to be any great honour or reward. Nor do I remember any vigorous pursuit of justice in any of our wars. The My Lai massacre in Vietnam is one that we actually know about: 500 civilians were killed - mostly women, children, and the elderly. There is no controversy that it happened, or who did it. Twenty-six US soldiers were the murderers. One of the murderers said 'I would say that most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human'. Only one was convicted - the commander, Lt William Calley. He served three years of house arrest, and is walking the streets today.
Are the 'governed' who 'consented' to the murder over a million Iraqi children through illegal sanctions during the 1990s 'responsible'?
This is why I stated in my original post that I was using the definition put forth in the US Declaration of Independence.
Then please, justify your dissention.
It's not magical, it is simply the operation of society. The populace puts forth the rules as far as what can and cannot be done, by majority decision. It gives the government the authority to levy taxes, as far as the taxes are used under the consent of the governed. The government taxes the people because the people demand the government do certain things, which cost money.
The rights granted and guarded by a government to the people based on the people's understanding of what they are entitled to.
There are those that do take honor in these things. If you don't feel they are important to you, then you feel no compulsion to earn them. There's nothing wrong with that.
It is well understood that the My Lai massacre was an instance of soldiers going far beyond what their duties were. They abused the power that was given to them. Those specific soldiers were guilty. This does not mean that all soldiers are.
Yes. When the government abuses their power, it is the responsibility of the people to get rid of that government. In 2008, the US people disagreed with the GOP's stance on various subjects, and elected an alternative. One which was closer to their beleifs.
if ethics were logical there wouldn't be so many arguments.
The 'rights' I speak of are rights to water, food, shelter etc. etc. They come from my head, as does everything else I talk about henceforth.
And again just because something is valid for A, does not mean it is valid for B. Each case is judged uniquely and separated. I do not treat everyone equally either FYI. I just can't help it.
And I'm not trying to justify a war for oil. I was talking about soldiers in general. It's too bad soldiers are more often than not used for greedy things.