2 ms·
For individuals killing is incredibly rare. Most people will never take a life, and even historically haven't. It also of course doesn't follow that merely beca
by Barrin92 2y ago
For individuals killing is incredibly rare. Most people will never take a life, and even historically haven't. It also of course doesn't follow that merely because killing happens it doesn't cause moral injury, it's obviously possible for an event to be both common and traumatic.
It is generally accepted that most people will resist to kill and moral injury is very well documented for example in police who have to use deadly force so the result here is actually surprising. Afghanistan might also be an unusual case by historical standards, because close combat was very rare and the fighting much more impersonal.
- maoberlehner 2y agoI agree with your points, and how I interpret "natural" has nothing to do with how often an individual does something. Many humans drive their cars every day. Does this make it a natural thing to do? I can see a definition of the word that makes it so. Still, the way I see it is that driving a car is something very unnatural to do, even if many people do it every day, but killing humans is something very natural, although most humans will never do it. Most people will absolutely kill another human if the circumstances call for it. It's in our nature to do so.
- mmooss 2y ago> Most people will absolutely kill another human if the circumstances call for it. It's in our nature to do so. What do you base that on? In one study of WWII soldiers on D-Day, half didn't shoot their weapons because they didn't want to kill someone (my memory of the study is vague). The military had to develop training to make soldiers more likely to kill.
- maoberlehner 2y agoYet somehow ~70 million died during WWII, curious.