A Solider

[Rayschism]

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.

Again, I hate morality as morality is just an excuse to hurt people.

 

[bigfield]

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.



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.

Again, I hate morality as morality is just an excuse to hurt people.

That's still nonsense.

 

[Rayschism]

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.



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.

Again, I hate morality as morality is just an excuse to hurt people.

That's still nonsense.

No it is not, however, I do lack the capacity and skill to help you understand my point of view.

 

[bilby]

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.



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.

Again, I hate morality as morality is just an excuse to hurt people.

That's still nonsense.

No it is not, however, I do lack the capacity and skill to help you understand my point of view.

You also apparently lack the ability to recognise that you are doing the thing you claim to hate, and that you claim is just an excuse to hurt people.

 

[Elixir]

In the OP situation, the thing to do is to place on precision round on the detonation mechanism in the exact spot where it will disarm the bomb and not hurt the child.

That way you can capture the child and torture his sorry ass to death.

Seriously - war is hell and nobody comes away from it un-scarred.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seriously - war is hell and nobody comes away from it un-scarred.

Time and again, we seem surprised to discover this simple fact.
The worst thing about war is not what you do under orders, but finding out what you're willing do to survive.

 

[Valjean]

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.

My point is that soldiers do not need to justify their actions. They've abdicated both personal choice and accountability. Soldiers follow orders and need not consider the morality of said orders. As long as they follow orders they consider their actions proper, and the moral repercussions redound to the officer giving the orders.

This, I think, is wrong headed. We cannot abdicate individual responsibility for each of our actions.

 

[bilby]

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

My point is that soldiers do not need to justify their actions. They've abdicated both personal choice and accountability. Soldiers follow orders and need not consider the morality of said orders. As long as they follow orders they consider their actions proper, and the moral repercussions redound to the officer giving the orders.

This, I think, is wrong headed. We cannot abdicate individual responsibility for each of our actions.

It is wrongheaded; which is why it hasn't been true (at least in the majority of armies) in living memory.

The Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II made very clear that obedience to orders is not a valid defence for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that soldiers be made aware that they are not required to follow unlawful orders, and that they have a duty to refuse them.

Of course, the reality is that most soldiers will follow their orders in most situations; and it is arguable that many actions, despite being permissible under international law in time of war, may be immoral.

But it's certainly not the case in law that soldiers are required (or even permitted) to abdicate all responsibility for their actions on the basis that they were under orders.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

My point is that soldiers do not need to justify their actions. They've abdicated both personal choice and accountability. Soldiers follow orders and need not consider the morality of said orders. As long as they follow orders they consider their actions proper, and the moral repercussions redound to the officer giving the orders.

This, I think, is wrong headed. We cannot abdicate individual responsibility for each of our actions.

How much time have you spent in uniform?


I have always been held responsible for my actions, even if i was following direct orders. Phrases like 'knows or should know or could be expected to know' the ramifications of the action are used to make sure we do NOT blindly follow all orders. They even took 'when so directed by competent authority' out of the conditions of Deadly Force exactly because we need to be sure the conditions are met, not just take the chief or officer's word for it.

I have had conversations that included 'you cannot order me to do that' either because it was illegal or stupid or both.

 

[EricB]

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.

Um, no. Once again you show your complete ignorance of the concept of "lawful order." Then you go on to make a sweeping generalization of anyone who has ever served under fire. It may be possible to be more wrong than you are with this post, but I have no idea how anyone would manage it.

 

[EricB]

How much time have you spent in uniform?

You already know the answer. No one who served could possibly make the statements he did unless he was intentionally trolling. In another thread he referred to all soldiers as either sociopaths or psychopaths. He is never able to support his statements, and resorts to simple ad nauseam repetition of the same ignorant premise. To acknowledge this would require him to admit that a deeply held yet incorrect and ignorant concept is wrong, and he apparently is incapable of that.

 

[EricB]

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

My point is that soldiers do not need to justify their actions.

Yes, we do. There is accountability in the military, and it runs both up and down the chain of command.

They've abdicated both personal choice and accountability.

No. See again "lawful order." A concept which you willfully ignore.

Soldiers follow orders and need not consider the morality of said orders.

No, see again "lawful order."

As long as they follow orders they consider their actions proper, and the moral repercussions redound to the officer giving the orders.

Not only is this sweeping generalization incorrect, it shows you to be completely ignorant of how the military functions. I realize that has not stopped you in the past, and I doubt it will stop you in the future, but everyone is actually responsible for their own actions.

This, I think, is wrong headed. We cannot abdicate individual responsibility for each of our actions.

Fortunately this straw man argument based on your willfully incorrect premise is also wrong, because it is not what happens in the military. Any order can be questioned via Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Why do you continue to comment on this subject?

 

[EricB]

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.

And what about all of the civilians killing innocent civilians? Since this has happened, using his penchant for generalization, he too is a mass-murderer.

 

[Elixir]

If I wanted to make seyorni's case (which I do not), I'd be citing the current administration. We have a bunch of Republican congresscritters either tacitly or actively supporting a commander-in-chief's statements and actions that are probably illegal (certainly illegal if he was ANYONE other than President) and definitely immoral by any accepted norm. I'd be holding that up as an example of human nature, to prove that people will blindly follow authoritarian directives regardless of their foreseeable ethical/moral consequences. The fact that they are in the majority among our "representatives" can be construed to mean that such obeisance is an endemic attribute of the human consciousness.

We'll see where this goes, but I don't believe that either the body politic nor the public that those individuals ostensibly represent, will indefinitely tolerate a continued pursuit down that moral rabbit hole.

We'll see....

 

[KeepTalking]

I wish to pose a question for some philosophical discussion.

FYI, there is a Philosophy forum here if you really want to engage in philosophical discussion. But on to your question, do you mind if I ask some questions about your question? I am proceeding under the assumption that you will not mind.

A soldier is with his friends and a child is running straight for them.

What kind of soldier are we talking about here? A Nazi Stormtrooper? A member of a Rwandan Death Squad? ISIS soldier?

The child is wearing a suicide bomb vest and the intent is clear that the child intends to kill them.

How old is the child? How is it clear that the child intends to kill them? Is it clear that the bomb is not a fake? If the bomb is not a fake, is it clear that the child has the ability to detonate the bomb themselves, or could it be remotely triggered?

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

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

I guess it is time for me to answer, rather than ask more questions. I will provide my assumptions while waiting for your response, as I answer:

1) The soldier is an ISIS soldier, who just beheaded 100 innocent men, and is on his way to rounding up more with his terrorist "friends". The child is 14 years old, and just witnessed the soldier beheading his entire family. The soldiers should not shoot and kill the child, they should shoot each other for being terrorist bastards, and the last one standing should kill himself so that the child does not have to take his own life in this act of vengeance.

2) The child is wearing an obviously fake bomb consisting of toilet paper rolls and aluminum foil, re-enacting a scene from a movie, and chanting gibberish that he thinks is Arabic, "daka laka daka!" The soldiers should take the child in hand, find his parents, and give them all a stern talking to about how dangerous the game is that the child is playing.

3) This child is four years old, and what was mistaken as an intent to kill, it actually fear and horror, as he is running from the person who threatened him and strapped the bomb to him. The child does not have an ability to detonate the bomb himself, and the person who did this can be seen holding a remote detonator in the distance. The soldiers should target the person with the remote detonator, while retreating to a safe distance and calling in a bomb disposal unit.

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

As I hope my responses make clear, this would depend on the exact situation. Do you have any real world examples of this situation playing out? If we did, perhaps we could gain a better perspective on what happened, and whether or not the soldiers are morally culpable for killing the child.

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.

In a situation involving unidentified "soldiers", and unkown assailants, it is difficult to determine who is doing the defending, and who might be guilty of murder.