5 ms·

I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no

I think that one thing we 'normals' don't seem to understand, is that when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no longer really part of society. Society is determined by the survival of its members - start removing them, and you get a lesser society. That is obvious. But we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering business society' really think about us. More often than not, you'll find that the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing, maiming, destroying life. Its a simple fact that if you get up in the morning with the intention of taking a human life, if ordered to do so, then you no longer belong to the human race. You belong to something else. Not a single one of us in the 'normal society' can entertain the thought of killing someone, on a daily basis, and not suffer consequences. How is it then for those who spend their entire lives working to be the best possible killers they're allowed to be?

neals 13y ago
You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?
- fit2rule 13y ago
  Yes, I do. The reason is because I think that anyone whose job it is to murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the state - and who chooses to do this as a career is a very, very sick individual. We do not need a military that can deliver a bomb on some individuals head at the drop of a whim - we need an organization that makes peace, for the state, far more.
  - dreamfactory 13y ago
    The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature vs nurture question.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      I don't buy the justification. We can choose not to kill people. We can choose to spend our time educating people, instead. Those who join the military, subjugate themselves to others, and stop making choices. This is a contagious disease, not some 'normality' about human existence...
      - dasil003 13y ago
        Violence is a part of nature, and humans are evolved to participate in it like all animals. It only becomes evil in the context of human values, where I agree there is no reason for people to be killing each other. However the ability and taste for killing is a genetic trait that has been valuable for some individuals over time, so don't fool yourself that some people aren't genetically primed to be killers.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        Humans can choose to be non-violent. This is what makes us human. The moment you remove that choice - either personally or socially - you become an animal, again. Genetic traits? Well, we've overcome them before, with our free will - we'll do it again. We had lots of genetic traits that predetermined our inability to live on the Moon - but we soon decided that wasn't going to get in our way. Why can't we do the same thing with War? Because viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases which fester in the mind of Mankind, and very few are ever prepared to cure themselves of it.
        dasil003 13y ago
        > viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases Way to take an even-handed comment like mine stating facts with minimal value judgements and attempt to turn it into fuel for your idealogical steamroller. The only problem is you didn't really read and comprehend what I said.
        fit2rule 13y ago
  - mikeash 13y ago
    "...we need an organization that makes peace, for the state, far more." What does such an organization look like, and how does it work? It's very easy to say that we should just stop killing people and instead make peace. It's extremely difficult to put forth a realistic plan that accomplishes that.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      Imagine if the resources being used to develop drones and bombs and other killing robots were instead being used to develop tools that would improve the lives of your average Afghani child. This would be a far more honorable investment than the current situation. Yes, I'm not sure I know what it would look like, but I'm pretty sure that its possible to develop the "B1 bomber" of education systems. I'm quite sure that the technology being used to deliver death from the skies can instead be used to improve the agricultural requirements of the average Afghani village. Heck, even an AK47 can be turned into a water pump, given the right intentions ..
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        This would be a far more honorable investment than the current situation. Honorable and effective are not the same. Seriously, the problem is hardly farming. The world has thousands of years of farming development, and Afghanistan has been farmed for just as long. Nor is the problem education systems. The problem is political, and I fail to see how we can drop K-12 educations on people who aren't allowed to or are unwilling to learn. But, of course, you appear to be a flower hippie pretty dead-set in your ways, so I don't really hope to change your mind. You keep working on that B2 Tulip Bomber- I'm sure if we can only manage to bomb Afghanistan with flowers & love, world peace will be immediately achieved.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        It is points of views such as yours which stand in the way of true peace being attained in the world. The problem is, and always has been: education. What sort of education gets delivered to the village when the US maims half its children, kills its elders, and terrorizes its mothers?
- belorn 13y ago
  > "but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something." A very much black-and-white description of the current war. "Evil" is actually the most descriptive form about an enemy that can't be specified, a war that selects its foes arbitrary and which lacks any specific goals for winning. Lacking all that, all a person can say is: "we are protecting the good side that is us from the evil that are them". There is no more specific way to describe it, which also means it can never actually end.
- 7952 13y ago
  These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.
  - pkinsky 13y ago
    >These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do. Not to equate the Army with the Mafia, but this argument applies equally well to mafiosos. Both follow orders, do evil things, and suffer PTSD.
- wreegab 13y ago
  > "I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?" There is something ironic in there.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    There is also a prisioner's dilema in there. That's the entire problem.
  - neals 13y ago
    Care the clarify so I can proof you wrong?
yeukhon 13y ago
> More often than not, you'll find that the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing, maiming, destroying life. That's not true. Many joined the military because they believe in their version of patriotism. They are also trained to adopt to utilitarianism as much as possible. The part they are missing when they follow deonotology, as a solider, at least to the Kantian, using someone as a merely mean to an end is not right. So killing 20 villages to kill 2 terrorists is not acceptable (and Nagel's absolutism argues this). But they try to justify their action by remembering they are soldiers and they are fighting terrorists. So killing a few innocent may justify the end.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance, a chance to live behind the bar and be educated behind the bar. People who execute capital punishment order is violating the most basic rules of a human life, right? The prison didn't do anything to the executioner. So we should never kill Hilter even if we caught him alive. Absolutism says we must not kill anyone unless that person is doing some hostile to you (pointing a gun at you, and so you have the right to defend yourself). But if Hilter is just sitting at his desk, and you destroyed his army, will you kill him? One say he was being hostile, but that was his past. And he indeed COULD become a great man again. Who knows?
    - 13y ago

neals 13y ago

You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?

fit2rule 13y ago
Yes, I do. The reason is because I think that anyone whose job it is to murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the state - and who chooses to do this as a career is a very, very sick individual. We do not need a military that can deliver a bomb on some individuals head at the drop of a whim - we need an organization that makes peace, for the state, far more.
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature vs nurture question.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    I don't buy the justification. We can choose not to kill people. We can choose to spend our time educating people, instead. Those who join the military, subjugate themselves to others, and stop making choices. This is a contagious disease, not some 'normality' about human existence...
    - dasil003 13y ago
      Violence is a part of nature, and humans are evolved to participate in it like all animals. It only becomes evil in the context of human values, where I agree there is no reason for people to be killing each other. However the ability and taste for killing is a genetic trait that has been valuable for some individuals over time, so don't fool yourself that some people aren't genetically primed to be killers.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        Humans can choose to be non-violent. This is what makes us human. The moment you remove that choice - either personally or socially - you become an animal, again. Genetic traits? Well, we've overcome them before, with our free will - we'll do it again. We had lots of genetic traits that predetermined our inability to live on the Moon - but we soon decided that wasn't going to get in our way. Why can't we do the same thing with War? Because viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases which fester in the mind of Mankind, and very few are ever prepared to cure themselves of it.
        dasil003 13y ago
        > viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases Way to take an even-handed comment like mine stating facts with minimal value judgements and attempt to turn it into fuel for your idealogical steamroller. The only problem is you didn't really read and comprehend what I said.
        fit2rule 13y ago
- mikeash 13y ago
  "...we need an organization that makes peace, for the state, far more." What does such an organization look like, and how does it work? It's very easy to say that we should just stop killing people and instead make peace. It's extremely difficult to put forth a realistic plan that accomplishes that.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    Imagine if the resources being used to develop drones and bombs and other killing robots were instead being used to develop tools that would improve the lives of your average Afghani child. This would be a far more honorable investment than the current situation. Yes, I'm not sure I know what it would look like, but I'm pretty sure that its possible to develop the "B1 bomber" of education systems. I'm quite sure that the technology being used to deliver death from the skies can instead be used to improve the agricultural requirements of the average Afghani village. Heck, even an AK47 can be turned into a water pump, given the right intentions ..
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      This would be a far more honorable investment than the current situation. Honorable and effective are not the same. Seriously, the problem is hardly farming. The world has thousands of years of farming development, and Afghanistan has been farmed for just as long. Nor is the problem education systems. The problem is political, and I fail to see how we can drop K-12 educations on people who aren't allowed to or are unwilling to learn. But, of course, you appear to be a flower hippie pretty dead-set in your ways, so I don't really hope to change your mind. You keep working on that B2 Tulip Bomber- I'm sure if we can only manage to bomb Afghanistan with flowers & love, world peace will be immediately achieved.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        It is points of views such as yours which stand in the way of true peace being attained in the world. The problem is, and always has been: education. What sort of education gets delivered to the village when the US maims half its children, kills its elders, and terrorizes its mothers?
belorn 13y ago
> "but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something." A very much black-and-white description of the current war. "Evil" is actually the most descriptive form about an enemy that can't be specified, a war that selects its foes arbitrary and which lacks any specific goals for winning. Lacking all that, all a person can say is: "we are protecting the good side that is us from the evil that are them". There is no more specific way to describe it, which also means it can never actually end.
7952 13y ago
These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.
- pkinsky 13y ago
  >These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do. Not to equate the Army with the Mafia, but this argument applies equally well to mafiosos. Both follow orders, do evil things, and suffer PTSD.
wreegab 13y ago
> "I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?" There is something ironic in there.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  There is also a prisioner's dilema in there. That's the entire problem.
- neals 13y ago
  Care the clarify so I can proof you wrong?

yeukhon 13y ago

> More often than not, you'll find that the 'official killers' really don't care about human life - or else they wouldn't be devoting their time on earth to the singular purpose of killing, maiming, destroying life. That's not true. Many joined the military because they believe in their version of patriotism. They are also trained to adopt to utilitarianism as much as possible. The part they are missing when they follow deonotology, as a solider, at least to the Kantian, using someone as a merely mean to an end is not right. So killing 20 villages to kill 2 terrorists is not acceptable (and Nagel's absolutism argues this). But they try to justify their action by remembering they are soldiers and they are fighting terrorists. So killing a few innocent may justify the end.

fit2rule 13y ago
You've identified the problem - deonotology - but not the solution. Anyone who kills for a living, is violating the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth: life is sacred. You can't educate a dead man.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance, a chance to live behind the bar and be educated behind the bar. People who execute capital punishment order is violating the most basic rules of a human life, right? The prison didn't do anything to the executioner. So we should never kill Hilter even if we caught him alive. Absolutism says we must not kill anyone unless that person is doing some hostile to you (pointing a gun at you, and so you have the right to defend yourself). But if Hilter is just sitting at his desk, and you destroyed his army, will you kill him? One say he was being hostile, but that was his past. And he indeed COULD become a great man again. Who knows?
  - 13y ago