5 ms·
Or just hire people who has different moral values. Is it so difficult to find? I personally don't have the problem pushing the kill button.
by matz1 7y ago
Or just hire people who has different moral values. Is it so difficult to find? I personally don't have the problem pushing the kill button.
- kbenson 7y agoI think what we are seeing is people with different moral values that thought they wouldn't have a problem having a problem, so I'm not sure your suggestion would help (and you may want to consider that before volunteering yourself for something that might affect your mental health). I can't help but view this as similar to someone offering to work as a nurse "because they don't get sick".
- matz1 7y agoYes, there are certainly people like that. But I'm referring to people with different moral value who really are wouldn't have problem. Its not that rare isn't it? Its different, because everyone can get sick. The more accurate analogy is someone offering to work as nurse because they are not afraid of blood.
- kbenson 7y agoI think you'll have to prove to me that people like that exist, at least in a state that is acceptable enough that they can be employed by the military and not excluded because of those same problems. I suspect people like that cause far more problems than they solve. How many war atrocities do you need to make the entire idea cost more than its worth? And before someone jumps in that these are already atrocities, there's a huge difference between a mistake killing innocents or the idea of acceptable losses and slaughtering every man, woman and child in a village, because we've seen that before.
- matz1 7y agowhile I'm fairly certain I am that people, I'm not sure how to prove it to you. The war atrocities is either the issue of the leader making wrong decision or the soldier not following order. Assuming the leader made the correct decision of killing and the solider who execute that order is a solider who doesn't have moral qualm about the killing then what is the issue ?
- kbenson 7y agoWell, unless you've killed 10+ innocent people, I don't think there's a way to prove it, nor do I think you should be so sure of yourself. Beyond people having problems killing others, the nature of the job in question is that you will have visuals on people you are responsible for terminating, and there will be mistakes made, often on Intel you've provided ("it looked like a terrorist meeting to me, how was I to tell it was guys shooting the shit around a campfire?") I used to think of myself how I think you think of yourself, where I thought I could view killing and death rationally. Since then I've had a few points where I had to deal with the death of people I knew and while I was somewhat clinically detached most the time, there were instances, sometimes months later, where I was overcome with emotion for the first time regarding that incident. There's a fine line between being able to rationalize your decisions and being in denial, and the human mind doesn't always act as you want or expect. And besides making people accidental murderers, how do you test for this? Seems like many people in the army would probably identify just as you are, yet we still have this problem.
- matz1 7y agoYes, mistake do happen but you can acknowledge it, made improvement plan and move on. I think the issue is you are viewing the killing solely from your own perspective and your own morality. While I understand it can be emotionally traumatic for you, for others it won't. Just like killing animal, for some people it can be devastating and highly traumatic but for some other people it was nothing.
- glloydell 7y agoI'd say it's absolutely vital to have the responsibility in the hands of do have problems with "pushing the kill button", and then provide them with psychological support services to handle that duty. Giving people with no qualms or moral struggles with taking human life the tools to do so on a massive scale is an absolutely terrifying idea.
- matz1 7y agoWell, it depends on what the main objective of the job is. If it to kill someone then do you really want to give it to someone that have moral struggle?
- glloydell 7y agoI'd argue that the main objective of the job is to achieve the strategic objectives of the country engaged in armed conflict. Indiscriminate killing completely devoid of a moral or ethical framework definitely does not accomplish that objective.
- matz1 7y agoThats more of a higher level objective and sometimes to achieve that objective, killing people is required. Yes Indiscriminate killing is a problem but that is a different problem. The article is in regards of actual pushing the button, I'm assuming the killing is already decided after careful judgement .
- glloydell 7y agoIt doesn't matter how much care was taken in making the initial judgement if the information using it to reach it is flawed, or if the situation changes in the time between the decision being made and it's execution. I'd imagine that someone with no qualms about taking human life would be far less likely to confirm the validity and accuracy of those justifications. I don't think anyone wants drone operators who dismiss a group of children playing near a target because they don't place a value on human life.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoYou say you would find it easy to kill (concerning), but have you been in a similar situation? Have you at least killed a large animal? I've killed a rat with my own hands, I felt bad even though I never thought I would. It's different when you hear it squeak and bleed, then die in convulsions. I can't see myself killing a goat, let alone a person, unless I am fighting for my life. A purely speculative opinion of how you would feel is of little value.
- matz1 7y agoI haven't because I haven't had the opportunity presented. Does a lamb count ? Yes it die squeak and bleed, then die in convulsions. A lot of people like a farmer do this a lot on daily basis, its not that a big a deal.