4 ms·

> Ah, first, a duty flows from a moral position, so perhaps the master misspoke. I can't speak for them, but I'd say obedience would be a better word here. >

> Ah, first, a duty flows from a moral position, so perhaps the master misspoke. I can't speak for them, but I'd say obedience would be a better word here. > the people who lead military organizations, in most cases, have thought quite long and hard about their moral positions Then that just proves that there are leaders in military organizations that even after thinking long and hard about something, come up with abysmal results, which they never quite seem to be capable to even own up to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g > except in cases where they believed the operation truly met the standards of jus ad bellum Oh, so I can trust they believe that, and when it's instead a war of aggression, I'm to be comforted that they believe it's not? And then exactly those people who already can't seem to use their brains responsibily are supposed to be allowed to build machines to make "decisions" and kill autonomously? All you said is what everybody said, historically. Everybody is either the good guy, or when they fuck up, they're not obedient to evil, they're simpling making "mistakes"... but at least they thought long and hard, it's not always smooth sailing for those who kill others. As if that perspective is the only one that matters, while ignoring the people who were murdered by militaries through no fault of their own, and any duty a person might have towards them.

killjoywashere 8y ago
You're asking members of a military, that is, the custodians of ultimate state violence, to decide who the enemy is? Are you sure about that? To whom does the soldier have a greater duty, the government elected by the citizens of his country, or the citizens of some other country? Let's say I take a 4-star general, and strip him of all rank. Put him in a platoon and tell him to follow the orders of the lieutenant in charge. No matter his geopolitical insights and experience, he is now dependent on the information of the lieutenant. It's no longer theory, now it's specifics. He is told to knock down that door and shoot the first person he sees. How can he possibly make any decision other than to execute the orders he is given? This is the terrible responsiblity of the lieutenant: he is the last source of information and direction the soldier has. Would you want your soldiers to die for a lie? As the result of misdirection? Do you want them to know to kill an innocent?

killjoywashere 8y ago

You're asking members of a military, that is, the custodians of ultimate state violence, to decide who the enemy is? Are you sure about that? To whom does the soldier have a greater duty, the government elected by the citizens of his country, or the citizens of some other country? Let's say I take a 4-star general, and strip him of all rank. Put him in a platoon and tell him to follow the orders of the lieutenant in charge. No matter his geopolitical insights and experience, he is now dependent on the information of the lieutenant. It's no longer theory, now it's specifics. He is told to knock down that door and shoot the first person he sees. How can he possibly make any decision other than to execute the orders he is given? This is the terrible responsiblity of the lieutenant: he is the last source of information and direction the soldier has. Would you want your soldiers to die for a lie? As the result of misdirection? Do you want them to know to kill an innocent?