Hey all, I decided we should all have a fun ol' time arguing about moral issues. Let me begin.
For my career path, in the not so far future, I see myself joining the 4th Royal Australian Regiment, an elite unit in our army. Basically they sneak around the bush and pretend to fight kill people.
My question to you is this. When is it right to kill someone? I don't exactly like the idea of doing it, myself, but if it is necessary then I suppose I will be forced to. What is your opinion?

---

'Tonight, we dine in hell! I hear the buffet there is to DIE for' - Leonidas I

Human life, I think, can only be compared in value with other human life.. That said, killing one person to save two is logically (but still not quite morally) sound. Now.. if we're talking about soldiers, terrorists, armed combatant, etc.. That can possibly kill dozens of people, then killing that one person makes sense. (To me.)

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

is it even possible to kill someone philosophically?

---

i eat paint

lol, fishy! You mean if you kill someone and nobody has seen it or heard it, is the person really dead?

But honestly, self-defence is the only situation I could imagine killing a person and feeling right about it.

What's more problematic than when it's right to kill someone yourself is who should be allowed to decide if it's right or not under the law. I have a problem with getting such orders from a government I probably did not vote. That's a flaw in the system IMO.

---

Why snark works.

If someone threatens my life or the life of someone I care for I have the right to kill them if needed.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Bewbies said:
Now.. if we're talking about soldiers, terrorists, armed combatant, etc.. That can possibly kill dozens of people, then killing that one person makes sense. (To me.)

Would you give up your rights as a free human being just so that someone would kill those people and make you safe?

Oh noes, Rock is back. I'm leaving.

reaper47 said:
I have a problem with getting such orders from a government I probably did not vote. That's a flaw in the system IMO.

here's a nice little thought though. If a government is chosen democratically, that means that it is the result of a biggest-mass-choice. and the result of a mass choice is statistically better than the choice of a random individual. Just look how wikipedia is gradually beating encyclopaedia britannica. So that means the democratically-chosen government is a better judge than yourself !

Doc, If you honestly think your reply is somehow relevant to the thread, (or even makes sense), there is really no helping you, man.

Please, just go away.. shoo, shoo.

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

here's a nice little thought though. If a government is chosen democratically, that means that it is the result of a biggest-mass-choice. and the result of a mass choice is statistically better than the choice of a random individual. Just look how wikipedia is gradually beating encyclopedia Britannica. So that means the democratically-chosen government is a better judge than yourself !

As Buffalo Springfield said, "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
My nationstate is a father knows best state, and that's the way I likes it. Let's face it, people don't know what they want.

@ Doc
Please don't read between the non-existent lines.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

As a United States citizen, I fell it would be a immoral decision to join the service at this point.
And i wish the Michigan militia wasn't a grope if redneck, arian, psychopaths.

I once was talking to an ex SAS member the other day, and I asked him about his thoughts on killing people. His reply was:

'I wasn't thinking about killing the person, but about the people I was saving in the act of ending the guy's life'

And one thing about modern warfare is that it isn't fought 'by the book' any more. In Vietnam there were children who were told to carry grenades and blow themselves and the us soldiers up. Indeed, at my interview for joining the army, I was asked how I felt about killing a child or teenage boy. I honestly had no answer.

---

'Tonight, we dine in hell! I hear the buffet there is to DIE for' - Leonidas I

Indeed, at my interview for joining the army, I was asked how I felt about killing a child or teenage boy. I honestly had no answer.

What kind of answer did they look for?

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

here's a nice little thought though. If a government is chosen democratically, that means that it is the result of a biggest-mass-choice. and the result of a mass choice is statistically better than the choice of a random individual. Just look how wikipedia is gradually beating encyclopaedia britannica. So that means the democratically-chosen government is a better judge than yourself !

Yea, I've been there. That's the time for the Winston Churchil quote.

It might also be different in countries where (at the time!) military service isn't mandatory (which isn't the case where I live). For me, and every other male in my country, this question becomes very real by the time we get 18. We have to choose between a mandatory military service or, probably since the 1968 movement, a so called "civil service". Before that you didn't even have the choice.

It's part of being a soldier to follow orders without asking questions. It wouldn't work otherwise. I guess what I meant is that I, personally, would have a problem with filling this role. I'd also have a problem with shooting at people so I'm out anyway :razz:

But honestly, the concept of a soldier is a really weird one to me. You send the strongest young males your country has to offer into battlefield, risking their lives. It's the worst thing you could possibly do to the gene pool.

The only reason for armies to exist are backwards countries and their insane leaders that do not have any other way of showing strength. They are using the military for organized terrorism. That's why civilized countries still need armies for protection.

I'm just skeptical that sending them in the offense can really do much. You can wipe out their entire army (because they have less money), killing thousands upon thousands of people on their side. You risk a few hundred or thousand lives on your side. Millions of people are traumatized for their life.

And all - at best - to speed up a process that must have been going on already, because if it didn't, people will stay as insane under your leadership as under the crazy one. So as for democracy being the best judge: Some of the most extreme leaderships in history had been elected by their people. Mass choices of this kind aren't global, they're done by a biased group of people (people who live in the same country) that mostly vote on propaganda, not facts.

Defense is different, of course, because you don't really have a choice. But there's no physical "Army of Islamism" to start a war against, only a crippled mentality. So there's nothing that could be defeated by shooting it.

No, something's terribly wrong with powerful people, elected or not, having control over an army of young guys who may not question their decisions. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire, but on the long term (or "philosophically speaking") it's wrong.

Wait, where were we? I guess it was about why I think I'm a better judge than many governments in the world :wink:

PS:

What kind of answer did they look for?

That I'd like to know as well :/

---

Why snark works.

do do doot doo

People who seek political power are generally crooked assholes, so whether your country is run by a republic, a democraticly-run fascist regime, or a communist dictator, chances are the guy in charge and all the people he has around him, are all crooked assholes.

I would only kill someone in defense, if I was forced to fight for my country's imperial ambitions I would desert. Period.

---

o

Apparently that kind of question is used to weed out the psychos from the 'normies', and if a person said that they'd kill a child soldier without question, then they'd be psychologically examined more thoroughly.

---

'Tonight, we dine in hell! I hear the buffet there is to DIE for' - Leonidas I

I myself, fall under the heading of killing in self defense, or for the defense of others. I'm thankful that I've never been in such a situation, though.

Apparently that kind of question is used to weed out the psychos from the 'normies', and if a person said that they'd kill a child soldier without question, then they'd be psychologically examined more thoroughly.

Perhaps -- while I have no intention of being a soldier, nor do I have any experience it, I might try to argue that being willing to kill anyone in a combat situation might be an aid, rather than something saying person X is a psycho. Once again: If I feel that I'm in a life or death, "Me or Him" situation, I presume I would kill the other person, regardless of their age, sex, beliefs, etc.

---

Breaking the laws of mapping since 2003 and doing a damn fine job at it

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting reaper47</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>here's a nice little thought though. If a government is chosen democratically, that means that it is the result of a biggest-mass-choice. and the result of a mass choice is statistically better than the choice of a random individual. Just look how wikipedia is gradually beating encyclopaedia britannica. So that means the democratically-chosen government is a better judge than yourself !</DIV></DIV>

Yea, I've been there. That's the time for the Winston Churchil quote.

It might also be different in countries where (at the time!) military service isn't mandatory (which isn't the case where I live). For me, and every other male in my country, this question becomes very real by the time we get 18. We have to choose between a mandatory military service or, probably since the 1968 movement, a so called "civil service". Before that you didn't even have the choice.

It's part of being a soldier to follow orders without asking questions. It wouldn't work otherwise. I guess what I meant is that I, personally, would have a problem with filling this role. I'd also have a problem with shooting at people so I'm out anyway :razz:

But honestly, the concept of a soldier is a really weird one to me. You send the strongest young males your country has to offer into battlefield, risking their lives. It's the worst thing you could possibly do to the gene pool.

The only reason for armies to exist are backwards countries and their insane leaders that do not have any other way of showing strength. They are using the military for organized terrorism. That's why civilized countries still need armies for protection.

I'm just skeptical that sending them in the offense can really do much. You can wipe out their entire army (because they have less money), killing thousands upon thousands of people on their side. You risk a few hundred or thousand lives on your side. Millions of people are traumatized for their life.

And all - at best - to speed up a process that must have been going on already, because if it didn't, people will stay as insane under your leadership as under the crazy one. So as for democracy being the best judge: Some of the most extreme leaderships in history had been elected by their people. Mass choices of this kind aren't global, they're done by a biased group of people (people who live in the same country) that mostly vote on propaganda, not facts.

Defense is different, of course, because you don't really have a choice. But there's no physical "Army of Islamism" to start a war against, only a crippled mentality. So there's nothing that could be defeated by shooting it.

No, something's terribly wrong with powerful people, elected or not, having control over an army of young guys who may not question their decisions. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire, but on the long term (or "philosophically speaking") it's wrong.

Wait, where were we? I guess it was about why I think I'm a better judge than many governments in the world :wink:

PS:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>What kind of answer did they look for?</DIV></DIV>

That I'd like to know as well :/

</DIV></DIV>

Idealism is good, but ultimately never accepts the truth. The liberal and optimistic mind would say that war is not necessary for humanity... sadly, it is not so. The world cannot, can never function with such ideals - history dictates that war and the control of power is a function of intelligence, even considering "an office situation". Resources, food, water - even respect and awe of one man over another is human nature, nature, even. These basic human ideals of "survival of the fittest" have been nurtured even before Darwin - war, conflict and general disagreement are inevitable. To deny them is to either aspire to the Vulcans or believe in hardcore buddhism.

As for armies - again, it is a practice that is ingrained into the human psyche - even the animal psyche. Denying we are subject to instinct is the definition of human arrogance, and as for professional soldiers? We have long created armies and men of war who can serve the needs of a "state" - how is following the line of national curriculum/education any different to blindly shooting those declared as enemy?

Free speech and democracy has afforded us the right to question, albeit ineffectively here in the UK, the judgement of our elected peers. Either way capitalism, the tenent of democracy and past precedent, human nature is our nature. To challenge the system is to stand up and change - for the worst. To understand it, and work within its constraints is enlightened. War, however unjust is a tool and an industry which is a part of "nations", and has been for thousands of years. The ideals of the people however, are not. Even the revolutionaries will carry a gun to make their point known.

I feel that killing in the defense of innocent life is okay, because i believe that the life of an innocent person is more valuable that the life of a criminal. But I can understand that some people would disagree with, and say that all life is equally valuable, in which case we would to save at least two people before killing a criminal is okay. But it could also be argued that if the criminal is allowed to live, he could kill more people in the future, so by killing a criminal we're probably saving several lives, even if the criminal was only threatening a single innocent life. I don't think that anyone would argue that killing one person to save many is immoral, so we're left with the problem of whether or not it's okay to kill one person to save one other, which requires placing a value on human life, as much as everyone hates to do that.

None of this applies to killing in the defense of material goods (including oilfields), which I don't believe is acceptable under any circumstances, since if you think about it, it's not much different from killing to gain more material goods.

What that all boils down to is, either it's okay to kill one person to save one person (which is my personal opinion), or it's okay to kill one person to save several people. Killing people for any other reason is not okay. Okay?

---

Better to be in denial than to be human.

Bill Gates understands binary: his company is number one, and his customers are all zeros.

I don't want to kill people.

I'm going to join the army.

Perhaps -- while I have no intention of being a soldier, nor do I have any experience it, I might try to argue that being willing to kill anyone in a combat situation might be an aid, rather than something saying person X is a psycho. Once again: If I feel that I'm in a life or death, Me or Him situation, I presume I would kill the other person, regardless of their age, sex, beliefs, etc.

You need to remember that the army is based on trust and discipline, and the recruiting and psychological examinations are to make sure that if you ever do get into a combat situation you need to know the guy isn't gonna crack. But I get your point, it could well be a trait they are looking for the infantry or something.

---

'Tonight, we dine in hell! I hear the buffet there is to DIE for' - Leonidas I