A Solider

[Rayschism]

I wish to pose a question for some philosophical discussion.


A soldier is with his friends and a child is running straight for them. The child is wearing a suicide bomb vest and the intent is clear that the child intends to kill them.

Should the soldiers shoot and kill the child in self defense?

Or should the soldiers just allow the child to explode and kill them?

If the soldier shot and killed the child in self defense and in defense of his friends, would that make him a murderer?

Personally, I don't believe it would. While I would feel bad over the situation, I would not feel guilty over it because I personally believe that a person has the right to defend themselves against any attacker.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"A soldier is with his friends...."

Kind of an odd setup.

How about 'a soldier is stationed as a security guard, defending a camp.' That makes sure he not only has a gun in his hands, he has the duty to defend the camp, whether he considers the other soldiers his friends or just other assholes in uniform.

Then the question is merely whether or not the conditions of deadly force have been met, allowing him to shoot.

 

[bigfield]

Or should the soldiers just allow the child to explode and kill them?

Why do you imagine anyone would take that option?

(You must have something in mind, otherwise you would not have presented this as a moral dilemma for discussion.)

 

[Rayschism]

Or should the soldiers just allow the child to explode and kill them?

Why do you imagine anyone would take that option?

(You must have something in mind, otherwise you would not have presented this as a moral dilemma for discussion.)

I was thinking about several things.

Bruce Springsteen's Born In The USA which reminds of the attitude of soldiers being child killers because of Vietnam, and that some people like to put others on a pedestal. Child First people, as one example, love to put children on a pedestal and claim they are far more valuable than adults.

I really don't like it when people put other groups of people on a pedestal. That causes too many problems.

 

[bigfield]

Why do you imagine anyone would take that option?

(You must have something in mind, otherwise you would not have presented this as a moral dilemma for discussion.)

I was thinking about several things.

Bruce Springsteen's Born In The USA which reminds of the attitude of soldiers being child killers because of Vietnam, and that some people like to put others on a pedestal. Child First people, as one example, love to put children on a pedestal and claim they are far more valuable than adults.

I really don't like it when people put other groups of people on a pedestal. That causes too many problems.

How does that apply to your hypothetical? No matter what the soldier does, the child dies; his actions only determine whether he can save himself and others.

Some soldiers did murder defenceless children in Vietnam. See the My Lai Massacre as perhaps the most well-known example. That does make it right to tar all Vietnam vets with that brush, but it did happen.

Children die in every war, either as collateral damage or as murder victims, and they are categorically innocent. Children do not have any political power and they are not belligerents. They are at the mercy of the adults, who are often far too willing to kill innocent civilians.

 

[Rayschism]

I was thinking about several things.

Bruce Springsteen's Born In The USA which reminds of the attitude of soldiers being child killers because of Vietnam, and that some people like to put others on a pedestal. Child First people, as one example, love to put children on a pedestal and claim they are far more valuable than adults.

I really don't like it when people put other groups of people on a pedestal. That causes too many problems.

How does that apply to your hypothetical? No matter what the soldier does, the child dies; his actions only determine whether he can save himself and others.

Some soldiers did murder defenceless children in Vietnam. See the My Lai Massacre as perhaps the most well-known example. That does make it right to tar all Vietnam vets with that brush, but it did happen.

Children die in every war, either as collateral damage or as murder victims, and they are categorically innocent. Children do not have any political power and they are not belligerents. They are at the mercy of the adults, who are often far too willing to kill innocent civilians.

Child first people would call the soldier a monster and a murderer because they place more value on the child than him, or her. They may not use the actual words, but the mentality they would project would see to be that he should let himself and his friends die to prove they value children.

Now, I've answered yours, why don't you try answering the question.

Also, I think you made a mistake. Don't you mean that ti does not make it right to tar all soldiers with that brush?

 

[Valjean]

The officially correct thing to do would be to mow him down. This situation is much less morally ambiguous than many a soldier finds himself in.
If a soldier is ordered to drop a load of bombs on a city, lob a mortar round into an apartment complex or fire a Hellfire missile at a house, knowing innocents are likely to be killed, he does it. Soldiers abdicate personal responsibility for their deeds and believe any act is correct as long as it is ordered by an authority figure.

 

[Lion IRC]

I would take the course of action which saves the most lives.

Of course it's conceivable that the bomb is intended to prevent the soldier (and his friends) from further killing of innocent people.

If only I were omniscient and could objectively judge what was right in this case.

 

[Opoponax]

The officially correct thing to do would be to mow him down. This situation is much less morally ambiguous than many a soldier finds himself in.
If a soldier is ordered to drop a load of bombs on a city, lob a mortar round into an apartment complex or fire a Hellfire missile at a house, knowing innocents are likely to be killed, he does it. Soldiers abdicate personal responsibility for their deeds and believe any act is correct as long as it is ordered by an authority figure.

That's not true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's not true.

Which part?

He's correct about the official thing. Deadly force is authorized to protect one's own life, or the life of another, or to prevent grievous bodily harm. They would prefer that 'lesser means' be employed, but as most suicide bombers these days are sewn into their bomb, it's a little difficult to knock it off the kid and save everybody.

The characterization of the soldiers' morality is a bit of bullshit, but a popular one.

 

[fast]

Should the soldiers shoot and kill the child in self defense?

Self defense is morally permissible if not down right morally obligatory. The soldier or his friends is well within their rights to stop the immediate threat. The course of action you speak of seems quite reasonable. The only other thing that pops to mind is just have damn good reason to think the child really has a bomb.

Or should the soldiers just allow the child to explode and kill them?

Oh goodness no! Stepping up to the plate to defend ourselves and our friends (and some family members ) is the right course of action.

If the soldier shot and killed the child in self defense and in defense of his friends, would that make him a murderer?

No way, not even close. While it most certainly is true that a murderer is someone who has killed another, it is not always true that someone who has killed another is a murderer. The distinction is very (very) important.

Personally, I don't believe it would.

You'd be correct. Of course, the truth is independent of your belief (and mine). It's a fact; the soldier in that case would not be a murderer, and anyone saying otherwise would be incorrect--not because of their beliefs, of course, but rather because they'd be factually incorrect.

While I would feel bad over the situation, I would not feel guilty over it because I personally believe that a person has the right to defend themselves against any attacker.

Most people would feel bad, as taking the life of another living human being tends to cause that. If by some unfortunate event you did somehow FEEL guilty (of some wrong doing), you'd have the support of those that would be correct in that you shouldn't FEEL guilty. And yes, you do have that right, and should a time ever come where it's shown that you don't have that right, then there's still gonna be those among us that believe you should act as if you have that right.

 

[Rayschism]

Self defense is morally permissible if not down right morally obligatory. The soldier or his friends is well within their rights to stop the immediate threat. The course of action you speak of seems quite reasonable. The only other thing that pops to mind is just have damn good reason to think the child really has a bomb.

Or should the soldiers just allow the child to explode and kill them?

Oh goodness no! Stepping up to the plate to defend ourselves and our friends (and some family members ) is the right course of action.

If the soldier shot and killed the child in self defense and in defense of his friends, would that make him a murderer?

No way, not even close. While it most certainly is true that a murderer is someone who has killed another, it is not always true that someone who has killed another is a murderer. The distinction is very (very) important.

Personally, I don't believe it would.

You'd be correct. Of course, the truth is independent of your belief (and mine). It's a fact; the soldier in that case would not be a murderer, and anyone saying otherwise would be incorrect--not because of their beliefs, of course, but rather because they'd be factually incorrect.

While I would feel bad over the situation, I would not feel guilty over it because I personally believe that a person has the right to defend themselves against any attacker.

Most people would feel bad, as taking the life of another living human being tends to cause that. If by some unfortunate event you did somehow FEEL guilty (of some wrong doing), you'd have the support of those that would be correct in that you shouldn't FEEL guilty. And yes, you do have that right, and should a time ever come where it's shown that you don't have that right, then there's still gonna be those among us that believe you should act as if you have that right.

Thanks for that. I too make a distinction between murder and killing, but I also view the taking of life is a bad thing.

 

[fast]

Thanks for that. I too make a distinction between murder and killing, but I also view the taking of life is a bad thing.

Generally, it is a bad thing, and that is because, generally, the bad outweighs the good. I say generally, for it as a general rule only that it is so. As general rules go, there are exceptions that prove the rule. To be less subtle, it is the exceptions that prove (not disprove) that it's merely a general rule.

When we say that dogs have four legs, we are correct not because ALL DOGS HAVE FOUR LEGS but because it's generally the case (most often the case) that dogs do in fact have four legs. That one poor dog you happen across that has but merely three legs is an exception to what is generally true.

When you view the taking of a life as a bad thing, make no mistake about it, as it is generally true that the taking of a life is a bad thing. An implication of this is that there are some circumstances whereby the good actually outweighs the bad instead of the other way around.

Your view (or the view you have expressed) is close to but a little different than the view I'm expousing. You appear to be saying that it's always the case that killing is wrong whereas I'm saying killing is usually wrong. However, like myself, you seem to be open to the idea that exceptions are worthy of our consideration; after all, your hypothetical thought experiment is built upon an exception.

When a cop intervenes and kills someone that is within a hair trigger of murdering an innocent bystander, what we need is an analysis that helps us to weigh the good and bad to see which outweighs the other. Which path makes for a better world, one where the bad guy prevails and the innocent dies or the other way around? If a different sequence of events could transpire where the bad guy need not lose his life, then great, but when options are such that it's him or her, let an analysis of the entire scenario determine whether this is just another case where the taking of a life is a bad thing or whether this is a case with more than a single variable that when all aspects of the situation are taken into consideration the final judgement is that this is an exception where the bad aspects are heavily shawdowed by the prevailing good.

 

[Rayschism]

Thanks for that. I too make a distinction between murder and killing, but I also view the taking of life is a bad thing.

Generally, it is a bad thing, and that is because, generally, the bad outweighs the good. I say generally, for it as a general rule only that it is so. As general rules go, there are exceptions that prove the rule. To be less subtle, it is the exceptions that prove (not disprove) that it's merely a general rule.

When we say that dogs have four legs, we are correct not because ALL DOGS HAVE FOUR LEGS but because it's generally the case (most often the case) that dogs do in fact have four legs. That one poor dog you happen across that has but merely three legs is an exception to what is generally true.

When you view the taking of a life as a bad thing, make no mistake about it, as it is generally true that the taking of a life is a bad thing. An implication of this is that there are some circumstances whereby the good actually outweighs the bad instead of the other way around.

Your view (or the view you have expressed) is close to but a little different than the view I'm expousing. You appear to be saying that it's always the case that killing is wrong whereas I'm saying killing is usually wrong. However, like myself, you seem to be open to the idea that exceptions are worthy of our consideration; after all, your hypothetical thought experiment is built upon an exception.

When a cop intervenes and kills someone that is within a hair trigger of murdering an innocent bystander, what we need is an analysis that helps us to weigh the good and bad to see which outweighs the other. Which path makes for a better world, one where the bad guy prevails and the innocent dies or the other way around? If a different sequence of events could transpire where the bad guy need not lose his life, then great, but when options are such that it's him or her, let an analysis of the entire scenario determine whether this is just another case where the taking of a life is a bad thing or whether this is a case with more than a single variable that when all aspects of the situation are taken into consideration the final judgement is that this is an exception where the bad aspects are heavily shawdowed by the prevailing good.

No, not always wrong, but always a bad things. Sometimes it is a necessity to take a life.

Some situations, seem to be relatively easier, such as say protecting your ten year old child from a rapist who is also a child killer, but still a traumatic experience.


But I think it would depend upon the individual.

 

[bigfield]

How does that apply to your hypothetical? No matter what the soldier does, the child dies; his actions only determine whether he can save himself and others.

Some soldiers did murder defenceless children in Vietnam. See the My Lai Massacre as perhaps the most well-known example. That does make it right to tar all Vietnam vets with that brush, but it did happen.

Children die in every war, either as collateral damage or as murder victims, and they are categorically innocent. Children do not have any political power and they are not belligerents. They are at the mercy of the adults, who are often far too willing to kill innocent civilians.

Child first people would call the soldier a monster and a murderer because they place more value on the child than him, or her. They may not use the actual words, but the mentality they would project would see to be that he should let himself and his friends die to prove they value children.

Now, I've answered yours, why don't you try answering the question.

Also, I think you made a mistake. Don't you mean that ti does not make it right to tar all soldiers with that brush?

To answer your question: It's clear that the soldier is not a murderer.

I've tried finding information on these so-called "Child First" people, but they appear to be a figment of your imagination. Organisations named Child First are dedicated to protecting children from abuse and neglect, and provide help to disadvantaged parents.

And yes, I made a typo.

 

[Valjean]

That's not true.

Which part?

He's correct about the official thing. Deadly force is authorized to protect one's own life, or the life of another, or to prevent grievous bodily harm. They would prefer that 'lesser means' be employed, but as most suicide bombers these days are sewn into their bomb, it's a little difficult to knock it off the kid and save everybody.

The characterization of the soldiers' morality is a bit of bullshit, but a popular one.

I can point out dozens of historical instances of soldiers knowingly killing innocent civilians. Is civilian morality different from military morality? Is morality overseas different from morality at home?

 

[fast]

No, not always wrong, but always a bad things. Sometimes it is a necessity to take a life.

Some situations, seem to be relatively easier, such as say protecting your ten year old child from a rapist who is also a child killer, but still a traumatic experience.

But I think it would depend upon the individual.

I've bolded the portion of your statement that stands out as needing adjustment. It reminds me of a little joke I make after coming in from the rain where I'll say almost all that water is wet. Almost (?), the listener will wonder. To which I respond, every drop didn't get me so I can't speak to those drops that didn't (or something to that effect). Of course, we all know that all the water is wet. That's obvious, but I don't think it's so obvious that it's ALWAYS in absolutely every case that taking the life of another is a bad thing. Well, bad in the sense that it's awful and in no way a desirable thing, sure, but for someone to chastise our soldier buddy for making an immoral decision seems to be off the mark, as it's not just a matter of what he done but the collective consequences of his actions that speak more towards whether the taking of that specific life under those circumstances was indeed a bad thing. He would be deserving of praise and thanks for the protection he gave.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can point out dozens of historical instances of soldiers knowingly killing innocent civilians.

Yeah, sure.
But your conclusion that all soldiers would justify that action, and how they justify it, seems bullshitty to me.

 

[Rayschism]

Child first people would call the soldier a monster and a murderer because they place more value on the child than him, or her. They may not use the actual words, but the mentality they would project would see to be that he should let himself and his friends die to prove they value children.

Now, I've answered yours, why don't you try answering the question.

Also, I think you made a mistake. Don't you mean that ti does not make it right to tar all soldiers with that brush?

To answer your question: It's clear that the soldier is not a murderer.

I've tried finding information on these so-called "Child First" people, but they appear to be a figment of your imagination. Organisations named Child First are dedicated to protecting children from abuse and neglect, and provide help to disadvantaged parents.

And yes, I made a typo.

Child first is not the actually, it is a phrase of contempt for them.

They art groups like the Parents Television Council who believe that everything, every single thing must be watered down in order to protect the children. Also groups like Child Protective Services.

For the record, I am not trying to be an ogre here in any capacity when it comes to children. I will never accept putting anyone on a pedestal and making them more valuable than another person on such petty things as age, gender, or skin color.

If life is sacred, we should all be valued equally and fairly.

 

[bigfield]

the Parents Television Council who believe that everything, every single thing must be watered down in order to protect the children.

That is hyperbole. The PTC has some weird ideas--their standard for indecency for instance--but the main thrust of their position is that prime-time TV should be suitable for everyone to view.

Also groups like Child Protective Services.

The purpose of CPS is to protect children from abuse and neglect from their legal guardians. It is baffling that anyone would hold them in contempt when their purpose is to protect the basic rights of children.

For the record, I am not trying to be an ogre here in any capacity when it comes to children. I will never accept putting anyone on a pedestal and making them more valuable than another person on such petty things as age, gender, or skin color.

Your standard for what constitutes a "pedestal" absurd.

If life is sacred, we should all be valued equally and fairly.

If you value all humans equally then you should support strategies that ensure that everyone's human rights are protected and provided for, regardless of their age and their immutable characteristics.

People in different situations have different needs depending on their circumstances. Children have different needs than adults, because children are dependent upon their legal guardians and other adults. Some minorities are subject to structural disadvantage and require special legal protections just to ensure they are treated fairly.

You need a moral framework in order to make consistent judgements about what is fair and what constitutes equality.