6 ms·

> At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained. To some extent y

> At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained. To some extent your question is in the same category as the above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.

giaour 5y ago
I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically, and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing the two. In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently, guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during the height of the pandemic.
- hitekker 5y ago
  It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called out as thoughtless.
  - giaour 5y ago
    I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves. Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's important to figure out what those might be before finding yourself pushed to those limits. The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that no one should be in any military, whereas thoughtful questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red lines.
  - advisedwang 5y ago
    FWIW I was asking because the 3rd paragraph describes the Yeomanry as being founded to prevent invasion and "formed to serve only within Great Britain" and so I was curious if it was a special-purpose unit still (and I asked about civil disturbance as clearly at some point that was a function, but perhaps later civil rights changes prevent the use of the army for policing like in the USA). But it doesn't really matter what my intention with the comment was, clearly I touched a nerve and most folks are replying on the ethics of the issue. That probably means that it is actually an interesting topic of discussion.
pphysch 5y ago
> He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. This is, at best, a naive portrayal of how London and Washington start wars. See the infamous Downing Street Memo [1]. In Washington, which often leads the rest of the West in military adventurism, Congress hasn't approved a military operation since 2002, despite a US-led coalition destroying sovereign Libya in 2011 and occupying Northern Syria since 2015. Indeed, the 2002 AUMF authorized by Congress for the Iraq War is still in effect 20 years later [2], and used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation, bypassing Congressional approval. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
- adewinter 5y ago
  It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society. Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    It does make the statement less true, because it is evidently not based in reality. In actually-existing 21st-century "democracies", the people do not choose who gets bombed. Those choices are made by unelected officials in the MIC and rationalized by think tanks and communications firms funded by the same MIC. > Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing. Strawmanning isn't cool.
    - adewinter 5y ago
      Hey fella, you're the one moving goal posts here. First you say it was "used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation"... ie the executive branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes". I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how the author came to his conclusions (described in parent replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g. whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring conversation. Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and how it's not great.
AdrianB1 5y ago
You are mostly right, except the democracy part: that does not mean anything. Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so well, a certain very famous dictator was elected to power and a present day Russian president as well. On paper they are all democracies, in practice there are degrees of bad or fake democracies all over.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so well, Absolutely. Especially since they did so to finally wipe out the scourge that were the Neanderthals. Sorry. I couldn't resist. I presume you meant 2,500 years rather than 25,000, yes?
monocasa 5y ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/98018... The royalty is still very much in charge in the UK, actively using their constitutionally protected veto power over new laws. It's only in the vaguest sense a democracy. Edit: At least read the article. There's documentation that all new law including simple amendments gets passed by the royal family before being voted on, and the royal family asks for major changes of both removals and additions to these laws. Having a monarch who has to sign off on all law and actively participates in the writing of that law is not a democracy, full stop. As a british subject, you are only allowed the laws that the queen thinks you should have, demonstrably, by the uk government's own documentation on the matter.
jnwatson 5y ago
You can simultaneously believe in democracy and believe that ceding one’s moral agency to the whims of the populace is immoral. We’ve had several recent examples of absolutely tragic uses of our military might. Voluntarily putting oneself in a situation where you have to “kill babies” or face serious consequences is itself immoral.
everforward 5y ago
> But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless. I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet undefined enemy is abdicating any moral decisions based on who the enemy is, or how the war is fought. It is delegating personal moral decisions to the masses. > He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. This is basically exactly my point. The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to. I find it unpalatable under my personal morals, because I believe there is no act with more gravitas than intentionally killing another human. No amount of societal cohesion or democracy can absolve a person of their personal responsibility for that death. The basis of the question is "How can you morally justify outsourcing your decision of whether it justifiable to kill a person or not?", because many of us simply can't imagine that. Democracies have done a lot of morally unbearable things, from slavery to the rise of Hitler, so they're clearly not infallible. This is basically just the Nuremburg defense with a veneer of democracy.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to." People always have a choice. They can refuse.
  - JabavuAdams 5y ago
    Not sure why this is getting down-voted. One of the greatest stories of courage and principled behaviour I have heard of is of the US helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr. who intervened in the My Lai massacre, saving children and civilians. He had to interpose his helicopter between the murdering US troops and the civilians. He ordered his crew to shoot US soldiers if they did not stop massacring civilians. His actions were eventually recognized, but at the time he was vilified by US politicians, and many citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

giaour 5y ago

I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically, and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing the two. In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently, guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during the height of the pandemic.

hitekker 5y ago
It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called out as thoughtless.
- giaour 5y ago
  I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves. Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's important to figure out what those might be before finding yourself pushed to those limits. The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that no one should be in any military, whereas thoughtful questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red lines.
- advisedwang 5y ago
  FWIW I was asking because the 3rd paragraph describes the Yeomanry as being founded to prevent invasion and "formed to serve only within Great Britain" and so I was curious if it was a special-purpose unit still (and I asked about civil disturbance as clearly at some point that was a function, but perhaps later civil rights changes prevent the use of the army for policing like in the USA). But it doesn't really matter what my intention with the comment was, clearly I touched a nerve and most folks are replying on the ethics of the issue. That probably means that it is actually an interesting topic of discussion.

pphysch 5y ago

> He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. This is, at best, a naive portrayal of how London and Washington start wars. See the infamous Downing Street Memo [1]. In Washington, which often leads the rest of the West in military adventurism, Congress hasn't approved a military operation since 2002, despite a US-led coalition destroying sovereign Libya in 2011 and occupying Northern Syria since 2015. Indeed, the 2002 AUMF authorized by Congress for the Iraq War is still in effect 20 years later [2], and used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation, bypassing Congressional approval. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

adewinter 5y ago
It might be naive but doesn't make the statement any less accurate or true. Some people have a strong belief, and faith, in democracy and democratic leaders. To the point that they'd join up and go fight if called upon. It's not for everyone but that's ok in a democratic society. Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing.
- pphysch 5y ago
  It does make the statement less true, because it is evidently not based in reality. In actually-existing 21st-century "democracies", the people do not choose who gets bombed. Those choices are made by unelected officials in the MIC and rationalized by think tanks and communications firms funded by the same MIC. > Implying that people who do believe in the system are stupid or "lesser," is perhaps something you should consider not doing. Strawmanning isn't cool.
  - adewinter 5y ago
    Hey fella, you're the one moving goal posts here. First you say it was "used by the executive branch to dictate any military operation"... ie the executive branch are the ones calling the shots. Now all of a sudden it's "unelected officials in the MIC" who are choosing who gets bombed. So which is it? The author clearly believes elected officials are in charge and he trusts them. Emphasis here on "believes". I'm not here to make a judgement on whether the article author's *beliefs* are correct or based in reality as defined by you. It's pretty straightforward to see how the author came to his conclusions (described in parent replies in this thread), when you begin with his starting assumptions. Clearly you disagree with those (e.g. whether democracy exists and whether it's worth signing up/fighting/dying for), but that's a real boring conversation. Also, fail to see how it's "strawmanning" when I'm pointing out your name-calling the author "naive," and how it's not great.

AdrianB1 5y ago

You are mostly right, except the democracy part: that does not mean anything. Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so well, a certain very famous dictator was elected to power and a present day Russian president as well. On paper they are all democracies, in practice there are degrees of bad or fake democracies all over.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Greeks had democracy 25000 years ago and it did not go so well, Absolutely. Especially since they did so to finally wipe out the scourge that were the Neanderthals. Sorry. I couldn't resist. I presume you meant 2,500 years rather than 25,000, yes?

monocasa 5y ago

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/98018... The royalty is still very much in charge in the UK, actively using their constitutionally protected veto power over new laws. It's only in the vaguest sense a democracy. Edit: At least read the article. There's documentation that all new law including simple amendments gets passed by the royal family before being voted on, and the royal family asks for major changes of both removals and additions to these laws. Having a monarch who has to sign off on all law and actively participates in the writing of that law is not a democracy, full stop. As a british subject, you are only allowed the laws that the queen thinks you should have, demonstrably, by the uk government's own documentation on the matter.

jnwatson 5y ago

You can simultaneously believe in democracy and believe that ceding one’s moral agency to the whims of the populace is immoral. We’ve had several recent examples of absolutely tragic uses of our military might. Voluntarily putting oneself in a situation where you have to “kill babies” or face serious consequences is itself immoral.

everforward 5y ago

> But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless. I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet undefined enemy is abdicating any moral decisions based on who the enemy is, or how the war is fought. It is delegating personal moral decisions to the masses. > He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. This is basically exactly my point. The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to. I find it unpalatable under my personal morals, because I believe there is no act with more gravitas than intentionally killing another human. No amount of societal cohesion or democracy can absolve a person of their personal responsibility for that death. The basis of the question is "How can you morally justify outsourcing your decision of whether it justifiable to kill a person or not?", because many of us simply can't imagine that. Democracies have done a lot of morally unbearable things, from slavery to the rise of Hitler, so they're clearly not infallible. This is basically just the Nuremburg defense with a veneer of democracy.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to." People always have a choice. They can refuse.
- JabavuAdams 5y ago
  Not sure why this is getting down-voted. One of the greatest stories of courage and principled behaviour I have heard of is of the US helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr. who intervened in the My Lai massacre, saving children and civilians. He had to interpose his helicopter between the murdering US troops and the civilians. He ordered his crew to shoot US soldiers if they did not stop massacring civilians. His actions were eventually recognized, but at the time he was vilified by US politicians, and many citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.