This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Does morality require religion?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
So why is combat-based killing acceptable? Why is killing in self-defence acceptable, but killing in aggression not acceptable?Because no one is going to stand around and let themselves die(well almost no one), survival is hard wired into us, so yes, if in combat, a soldier kills another soldier cleanly and face to face, I don't see that as being 'wrong', both sides more or less choose to be there to die. But out right killing someone for a stupid reason, ie @#$%ed because you lost your job or the like, that's a waste of another person, and should be punished.
As for your last paragraph... not sure what that has to do with this discussion heh; I mean, any first year Law Class will explain where most of the laws come from and what they mean after all.
Edit: And out for the night heh.
Post by
Squishalot
that's a waste of another person
So killing another soldier, irrespective of whether he *chose* to be there (he may not have been, he may be a conscript, or coerced), isn't a waste of another person?
Is suicide wrong? Euthanasia? Not preventing a death where you may have the potential to stop a person from dying? Are all these wrong, for the same reason?
But you see my point - now, you've specified why you think killing is wrong - because it wastes a person's potential. There is your fundamental basis.
As for your last paragraph... not sure what that has to do with this discussion heh; I mean, any first year Law Class will explain where most of the laws come from and what they mean after all.
Law class explains where most of the laws come from and what they mean. I'd expect an Ethics class to explain where most ethics come from, wouldn't you? :)
Edit:
Edit: And out for the night heh.
Good thing we're moreorless done :) Have a good one.
Post by
TheMediator
I don't approve of war at all, but the way I see it on the battlefield if someone else intends to kill, killing them to stop them from killing others functions
similarly
to saving someone from being killed. Its why killing prisoners of war is looked down upon - once they're no longer a threat, you have no reason to kill them. Killing PoWs is in my book the same thing as murder.
I still look down on soldiers and police as a whole though, because they place themselves in a position where they're going to be forced to kill, and intentionally doing something with the end goal of killing is murder. If you're drafted, that's a whole different story though (part of the reason why I have respect for WWII vets but I don't have respect for soldiers in Iraq).
I'd expect an Ethics class to explain where most ethics come from, wouldn't you?
Have you not taken an ethics course before?
Post by
MyTie
I didn't say that that they would 'not follow the teachings'. I said, 'irrespective of
how well
they follow the teachings'.
The difference here is intent.
A person who generally lives a good life, without consciously making an effort to improve towards being 'perfect' (in accordance with Jesus's teachings) is, in my mind and understanding, less likely to enter the kingdom of heaven than someone who lives a less morally correct life, but continually pushes himself to be better and more like Jesus wants him to be. (No, I'm not sure where in the Bible this conception of mine comes from. I can try to look it up, if you disagree with it.)
A rejection of Jesus's teachings would be akin to a rejection of Jesus anyway. But your eligibility into heaven isn't measured by your deeds, it's measured by your intent.
Ah, then I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing it up.
Post by
Adamsm
that's a waste of another person
So killing another soldier, irrespective of whether he *chose* to be there (he may not have been, he may be a conscript, or coerced), isn't a waste of another person?
Is suicide wrong? Euthanasia? Not preventing a death where you may have the potential to stop a person from dying? Are all these wrong, for the same reason?
But you see my point - now, you've specified why you think killing is wrong - because it wastes a person's potential. There is your fundamental basis.Well, again, Canadian here so we don't have conscription, so any of our soldiers who go overseas, while I may not support the wars, I support them; and yes, it is a waste, no matter which sides dies.... but it's a choice to sign up and go fight for your freedom, and you don't take away the choice.
Suicide isn't wrong to me; some people have been so screwed up, so pushed to the brink, that death is a release for them, and they shouldn't have that choice taken away from them. Euthanasia, again, that's a choice; otherwise, all those DNR notices would just be ignored and people would save those in a vegetative state and they would be kept alive, whether they wanted it or not. It's one thing to prevent a death; ie saving their life after their shot, had an accident, a sudden heart attack, but when your taking the choice away from them, your imposing your own choices on top of theirs, and I don't believe in that.
And yes, I do think a waste of a human life is a bad thing; but that's just me.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Killing is wrong. Who to blame for the killing though is a far less straight forward.
Is the guy that blew up himself in the midst of a crowd 100% responsible for what he did?
Is the soldier that killed another soldier to fully blame?
Is the guy that threw the atomic bomb is Japan fully to blame?
Killing is wrong, but it's not always a wrong of the guy that did it. IMO, if someone is to be judged is the guy that initiated that, rather than the one that commited it. Yes, they could choose not to, but sometimes you simply can't (eg the guy the suicided was propably brain washed, the soldier would kill or die, the guy that dropped the A-bomb had orders etc)
That's my position anyways
I agree with this post.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Orders do not make things a-ok. People have choices and although I do think that people that give the orders are just as guilty as the people that kill someone, I do not think we should diminish the person who committed the act. I think that the owners of that West Virginian coal mine should be charged with 29 counts of manslaughter for his gross violations of the law. However, if I told you to toss a bunch of people in an oven or to take this machine gun and go into a mall you have the choice not to. I am not a total puppet-master- I cannot control every little piece of your mind. In the end, I think that both sides should be seen as equal or the person that thought up the actions perhaps less circumstances permitting (having a child being used to carry out a crime for an example).
No, in my opinion orders do pass blame up the ladder. If you have the choice not to do something, it is not an order, it is a suggestion. The difference is that you will be punished if you don't follow through with an order, and whenever there is a threat against you involved, regardless of how you act all blame is taken by whomever issued the threat, because they are effectively acting through you.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
The argument of, "I was just taking orders" has been found to not be a good enough reason in every single legal procedure that I can think of in numerous countries across the board. Some things are just wrong and you should not do them.
Now days yes, because the Nuremberg Trials influenced international law to such a major degree. Personally I find it to be bull#$%^ - the claim is that there is a moral option to avoid orders, but in reality, there generally is not. Death or imprisonment by one's own country is NOT an option, but the Allies were just looking for someone to blame so they just made up that crap up. I'd be surprised if you could find one military involved in international affairs that has the option for soldiers to voluntarily leave at any point in time. They just don't exist.
Post by
Skreeran
The argument of, "I was just taking orders" has been found to not be a good enough reason in every single legal procedure that I can think of in numerous countries across the board. Some things are just wrong and you should not do them.
Now days yes, because the Nuremberg Trials influenced international law to such a major degree. Personally I find it to be bull#$%^ - the claim is that there is a moral option to avoid orders, but in reality, there generally is not. Death or imprisonment by one's own country is NOT an option, but the Allies were just looking for someone to blame so they just made up that crap up. I'd be surprised if you could find one military involved in international affairs that has the option for soldiers to voluntarily leave at any point in time. They just don't exist.This.
Let's say I'm a German dude in 1942. I'm drafted into the army and my commanding officer says "You will shoot these prisoners."
My options are 1. Shoot the prisoners or 2. Don't shoot them, be shot myself for insubordination, and have my family suffer because of it.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisoner.
Post by
MyTie
Let's say I'm a German dude in 1942. I'm drafted into the army and my commanding officer says "You will shoot these prisoners."
My options are 1. Shoot the prisoners or 2. Don't shoot them, be shot myself for insubordination, and have my family suffer because of it.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisoner.
I would allow myself to be shot. I love my family, and that's exactly why I WOULDN'T shoot the prisoners. It doesn't matter if government doesn't give you the option, there is STILL an option, and shooting a room full of random prisoners, including children, is something that I couldn't do.
That is a big difference between you and me, or myself and anyone who would. I find it contemptable. I find it shocking that anyone
would
shoot. I find it so detestable, that it makes me wish I had nothing to do with the human race.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisonerThis kind of "justification logic" makes me want to vomit.
Post by
Skreeran
Let's say I'm a German dude in 1942. I'm drafted into the army and my commanding officer says "You will shoot these prisoners."
My options are 1. Shoot the prisoners or 2. Don't shoot them, be shot myself for insubordination, and have my family suffer because of it.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisoner.
I would allow myself to be shot. I love my family, and that's exactly why I WOULDN'T shoot the prisoners. It doesn't matter if government doesn't give you the option, there is STILL an option, and shooting a room full of random prisoners, including children, is something that I couldn't do.
That is a big difference between you and me, or myself and anyone who would. I find it contemptable. I find it shocking that anyone
would
shoot. I find it so detestable, that it makes me wish I had nothing to do with the human race.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisonerThis kind of "justification logic" makes me want to vomit.Well, I'd rather keep my own family alive. You can't reasonably expect someone to lay down their life, and the lives of their family, including THEIR children, for someone they don't even know, who will just end up getting shot anyway.
Post by
TheMediator
Let's say I'm a German dude in 1942. I'm drafted into the army and my commanding officer says "You will shoot these prisoners."
My options are 1. Shoot the prisoners or 2. Don't shoot them, be shot myself for insubordination, and have my family suffer because of it.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisoner.
I would allow myself to be shot. I love my family, and that's exactly why I WOULDN'T shoot the prisoners. It doesn't matter if government doesn't give you the option, there is STILL an option, and shooting a room full of random prisoners, including children, is something that I couldn't do.
That is a big difference between you and me, or myself and anyone who would. I find it contemptable. I find it shocking that anyone
would
shoot. I find it so detestable, that it makes me wish I had nothing to do with the human race.
When it comes down to it, I love my family more than I love some random prisonerThis kind of "justification logic" makes me want to vomit.
Stop the "appeal to emotion" crap. Nobody here eats that up - go to the foxnews website if you want to manipulate the uneducated. We're having a real logical discussion here, and nobody cares to read this type of post.
I've been trying to figure out the conservative actual point of view of things, and it just doesn't make sense. It seems like any rational point of view is opposed by conservatives even if it means jumping on the other side of the argument. What happened to the right to life? If they would rather die than kill, why are they so opposed to gun control? etc. etc.
Post by
Squishalot
I've been trying to figure out the conservative actual point of view of things, and it just doesn't make sense. It seems like any rational point of view is opposed by conservatives even if it means jumping on the other side of the argument. What happened to the right to life? If they would rather die than kill, why are they so opposed to gun control? etc. etc.
Mediator, you've come right to the crux of the issue. People are inconsistent because they don't understand where their morals and values are coming from.
MyTie clearly believes that taking another's life is wrong, full stop. So therefore, he can state that it would be better to be shot, than to do the morally wrong thing and shoot someone else out of selfishness.
Others in this thread would argue that if someone has to die, it would be more happiness-generating (utilitarian) for the prisoner to die, than for you to die (and the prisoner to die anyway), resulting in the loss of two lives, perhaps. But morally, the difference is that you're the one pulling the trigger.
The important thing, again, is to understand why you believe in something, to understand the fundamental basis for what values you stand for, and then everything should become clear, there are no inconsistencies.
Post by
Monday
Stop the "appeal to emotion" crap. Nobody here eats that up - go to the foxnews website if you want to manipulate the uneducated. We're having a real logical discussion here, and nobody cares to read this type of post.
And I care to read this kind of post either. If you don't like Fox News then leave it alone. There happen to be those who like it.
Post by
TheMediator
Stop the "appeal to emotion" crap. Nobody here eats that up - go to the foxnews website if you want to manipulate the uneducated. We're having a real logical discussion here, and nobody cares to read this type of post.
And I care to read this kind of post either. If you don't like Fox News then leave it alone. There happen to be those who like it.
There are people who like killing other people for a living. What's your point?
Post by
Monday
Stop the "appeal to emotion" crap. Nobody here eats that up - go to the foxnews website if you want to manipulate the uneducated. We're having a real logical discussion here, and nobody cares to read this type of post.
And I care to read this kind of post either. If you don't like Fox News then leave it alone. There happen to be those who like it.
There are people who like killing other people for a living. What's your point?
My point is don't diss Fox News. Use a different example like you were telling MyTie.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.