4 ms·

I have never followed that logic. If a mob boss orders a henchman to kill a rival, who should be prosecuted for murder? I would feel that it should be both.

by qc 17y ago

I have never followed that logic. If a mob boss orders a henchman to kill a rival, who should be prosecuted for murder? I would feel that it should be both. I cannot see how it should be the mob boss and not the henchman. I also struggle to see how the henchman should be honored.

andreyf 17y ago
The henchman should be honored, because without the honor, there would be no reason for the henchman to kill - the personal risk is too great, and the personal reward too little. But the mob as a whole clearly benefits from killing rivals, so by introducing honor (which, for someone without it, is worth a lot), everyone can expect a positive payout (except for the rival). I think you'd probably object to my ignoring the totality of the situation - a murder has been committed. But what's the harm in murder as long as it's happening external to "our civilization"?
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  Pacifism works if everyone in the world is a pacifist. Barring that, there always exists the possibility of a situation where you will have the blood of many on your hands by refusing to take action against a single person.
Radix 17y ago
Periodic hit on it when they said "the service men and women will be there fighting regardless of whether it was right or wrong because the cost of missing the right call is too high." I believe those who hold that logic, myself included, have different expectations of the responsibilities of the soldier and the henchman. The soldier is in a strict hierarchical organization that demands its members follow orders for the organization to continue operating. Members lower in the organization are expected to begin working before they understand why, so they aren't held responsible for everything they do. The henchman may also be a part of an organization like that, but he is just another citizen, working for his organization and own betterment, and is expected to be responsible for his actions. Also, he can hardly say that his organization is working on behalf of his entire nation, as the soldier can. edit: I should add, that this perspective does eventually reach a breaking point as time passes servicemen begin to see what the goals of their leaders are, and if they disagree with them then they may be obligated, morally or otherwise, to excuse themselves or switch sides. Looking back at your comment I see that you're speaking of henchman and mob bosses only, but as a proxy for state leaders and the military. But my point is that people don't see them the same.
- qc 17y ago
  I agree that fighting an invading enemy, on your own soil, as was the case for many willing and unwilling soldiers of WWI and WWII, was the right thing to do. I also appreciate that the armed forces must have a strict hierarchy that follows orders in order for the organization to function effectively. I am worried though, that when an enemy is not so clear and obvious, this line of reasoning can be used by unscrupulous leaders to further their own goals. When the threat the "enemy" poses is so vague and unclear, as is the case for the conflicts that we (the US; I am an American and can only speak for the US), have been involved with since WWII, it becomes harder to swallow that all of the deaths our soldiers cause are anything but murder and volunteering to be placed in such a position is anything but honorable. Thus, the analogy of a mob boss and a thug.

by qc 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago

The henchman should be honored, because without the honor, there would be no reason for the henchman to kill - the personal risk is too great, and the personal reward too little. But the mob as a whole clearly benefits from killing rivals, so by introducing honor (which, for someone without it, is worth a lot), everyone can expect a positive payout (except for the rival). I think you'd probably object to my ignoring the totality of the situation - a murder has been committed. But what's the harm in murder as long as it's happening external to "our civilization"?

TrevorJ 17y ago
Pacifism works if everyone in the world is a pacifist. Barring that, there always exists the possibility of a situation where you will have the blood of many on your hands by refusing to take action against a single person.

Radix 17y ago

Periodic hit on it when they said "the service men and women will be there fighting regardless of whether it was right or wrong because the cost of missing the right call is too high." I believe those who hold that logic, myself included, have different expectations of the responsibilities of the soldier and the henchman. The soldier is in a strict hierarchical organization that demands its members follow orders for the organization to continue operating. Members lower in the organization are expected to begin working before they understand why, so they aren't held responsible for everything they do. The henchman may also be a part of an organization like that, but he is just another citizen, working for his organization and own betterment, and is expected to be responsible for his actions. Also, he can hardly say that his organization is working on behalf of his entire nation, as the soldier can. edit: I should add, that this perspective does eventually reach a breaking point as time passes servicemen begin to see what the goals of their leaders are, and if they disagree with them then they may be obligated, morally or otherwise, to excuse themselves or switch sides. Looking back at your comment I see that you're speaking of henchman and mob bosses only, but as a proxy for state leaders and the military. But my point is that people don't see them the same.

qc 17y ago
I agree that fighting an invading enemy, on your own soil, as was the case for many willing and unwilling soldiers of WWI and WWII, was the right thing to do. I also appreciate that the armed forces must have a strict hierarchy that follows orders in order for the organization to function effectively. I am worried though, that when an enemy is not so clear and obvious, this line of reasoning can be used by unscrupulous leaders to further their own goals. When the threat the "enemy" poses is so vague and unclear, as is the case for the conflicts that we (the US; I am an American and can only speak for the US), have been involved with since WWII, it becomes harder to swallow that all of the deaths our soldiers cause are anything but murder and volunteering to be placed in such a position is anything but honorable. Thus, the analogy of a mob boss and a thug.