5 ms·

> 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 th

by 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?
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      > Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer is wrong, then what is the purpose of protecting life? Life is precious. Why are we killing cows and chicken? I supposed you are animal rightist then. That's anti-animal as anti-human (but humans are animals!)
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        (Nice: You de-Godwin'ed yourself with an edit.) We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. With the tools and technologies we have available to us today, why is that purpose still to maim, murder, kill? Shouldn't the purposes have been aligned, by now, to make the trillion-dollar debt of the American people worth at least something to the rest of the human species? We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. Yes, I'm a 'peace-nik'. I'm human.
        yeukhon 13y ago
        > de-Godwin If we never take hard problem to a philosophical discussion, what can come out from the discussion? > We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. And why is war or violence created? Because we have desire, we as thinking things have thoughts and emotions. We become jealous and angry. We become depressed and sad. We harm others for these reasons. > We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. And we have schools. And we teach them to respect. The world you are describing does not exist. As long as there is freedom for someone to think, there is violence. Violence can be physical or verbal. You can kill someone by saying something very harsh and this person may go depressed for the rest of his life and ends up in a messy, unproductive life. I will respect you being a pacifist, but I urge you to think about other ethics theories as well.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  "the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth" That is just fundamentally untrue. The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. They would rather be members of a professional, trained force that means the number of total dead is minimised to the greatest extent possible. Modern wars by professional soldiers kill very few, both soldiers and non combatants, compared to the wars of conscripts and untrained masses.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    >The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Since time began, humans have been trying to stop it. So I don't think you're thinking this through .. >Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. Members of the military kill because they are ordered to do so, and no longer have the ability to express their own inherent free will. Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped.
    - cmdkeen 13y ago
      Who? You're quoting fancy philosophical terms, so here goes: Aristotle: the sort of war that involves hunting “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just” Plato's Republic had warriors as a vital part of his ideal society. Aquinas and Augustine gave us the Western "Just War" theory though other cultures had covered the idea earlier. Even Cardinal Wolsey's (and the Church's) thinking around perpetual peace was to allow fighting non-Christians. Kant and Bentham are hardly since time immemorial. I'll give you Jesus (only 2000 years), but the God of the Old Testament was rather pro-conflict, and other religions have very pro-conflict tenements. The accepted views of the majority of humanity until the late 20th century (perhaps not even now) is that different genders and races were unequal, that some were fit to rule over others, and that war was an inevitable consequence and participation in it was an honourable, noble and patriotic (once patriotism had emerged as a concept) activity. Who is not thinking this through. Plus the killing has massively reduced - the last decade has been one of the lowest for deaths in conflict in human history.

by yeukhon 13y ago

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?
- fit2rule 13y ago
  Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human - since human lives are being removed from the universe as a result of their actions. This goes for the current Joint Chiefs of Staff as much as it does any historical figure.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    > Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human Sorry, this is rubbish. This society we know of is built and established with guns and blood. We shall not have police, army or even guns. We fought wars. Your ancestors, my ancestors all fought in war one way or another. If you think that self-defending yourself against some murderer is wrong, then what is the purpose of protecting life? Life is precious. Why are we killing cows and chicken? I supposed you are animal rightist then. That's anti-animal as anti-human (but humans are animals!)
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      (Nice: You de-Godwin'ed yourself with an edit.) We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. With the tools and technologies we have available to us today, why is that purpose still to maim, murder, kill? Shouldn't the purposes have been aligned, by now, to make the trillion-dollar debt of the American people worth at least something to the rest of the human species? We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. Yes, I'm a 'peace-nik'. I'm human.
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        > de-Godwin If we never take hard problem to a philosophical discussion, what can come out from the discussion? > We do not live in a world where War is necessary. We live in a world where War is created, for some purpose. And why is war or violence created? Because we have desire, we as thinking things have thoughts and emotions. We become jealous and angry. We become depressed and sad. We harm others for these reasons. > We don't need another B1 bomber. We do need schools where our children can learn to respect and love each other. And we have schools. And we teach them to respect. The world you are describing does not exist. As long as there is freedom for someone to think, there is violence. Violence can be physical or verbal. You can kill someone by saying something very harsh and this person may go depressed for the rest of his life and ends up in a messy, unproductive life. I will respect you being a pacifist, but I urge you to think about other ethics theories as well.
cmdkeen 13y ago
"the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth" That is just fundamentally untrue. The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. They would rather be members of a professional, trained force that means the number of total dead is minimised to the greatest extent possible. Modern wars by professional soldiers kill very few, both soldiers and non combatants, compared to the wars of conscripts and untrained masses.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  >The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Since time began, humans have been trying to stop it. So I don't think you're thinking this through .. >Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. Members of the military kill because they are ordered to do so, and no longer have the ability to express their own inherent free will. Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped.
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    Who? You're quoting fancy philosophical terms, so here goes: Aristotle: the sort of war that involves hunting “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just” Plato's Republic had warriors as a vital part of his ideal society. Aquinas and Augustine gave us the Western "Just War" theory though other cultures had covered the idea earlier. Even Cardinal Wolsey's (and the Church's) thinking around perpetual peace was to allow fighting non-Christians. Kant and Bentham are hardly since time immemorial. I'll give you Jesus (only 2000 years), but the God of the Old Testament was rather pro-conflict, and other religions have very pro-conflict tenements. The accepted views of the majority of humanity until the late 20th century (perhaps not even now) is that different genders and races were unequal, that some were fit to rule over others, and that war was an inevitable consequence and participation in it was an honourable, noble and patriotic (once patriotism had emerged as a concept) activity. Who is not thinking this through. Plus the killing has massively reduced - the last decade has been one of the lowest for deaths in conflict in human history.