A question of moral responsibility
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Ahhhmmm... are you talking about Mumbai?
If Mumbai was in any other nuclear capable country other than India, there'd have been a war last month.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
MrPlankton wrote:
Ahhhmmm... are you talking about Mumbai?
If Mumbai was in any other nuclear capable country other than India, there'd have been a war last month.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
MrPlankton wrote:
I think people in India should strike off a check off to the Mossad[^], they are doing alot more for defense of India then India's government.
:rolleyes: A joint venture between Mossad and the Indian intelligence would be a very good idea.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Sad truth: there will be some soldiers who kill civilians on purpose because 'they' are the 'enemy'
In presumably hostile territory, how would you be able to tell the difference between civilian and a guerilla who left his AK47 in the other room?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I've always thought this pandering to 'fair', 'precise', 'clean' and 'humanitarian' wars would simply lead to more fighting. The basic tennet of war is that it's something so terrible, so costly and so destructive to all involved that no one would want to start one. If you firmly believe your neighbour can and would vapourize a percentage of your population, you don't start a fight.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Sad truth: there will be some soldiers who kill civilians on purpose because 'they' are the 'enemy'
In presumably hostile territory, how would you be able to tell the difference between civilian and a guerilla who left his AK47 in the other room?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Look, you trying to be a smartass, or did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part? Think of carpet bombing, atomic bombs, etc; the sample you gave is genuinely dubious, life is not all black and white, and war is less so.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I think people in India should strike off a check off to the Mossad[^], they are doing alot more for defense of India then India's government.
:rolleyes: A joint venture between Mossad and the Indian intelligence would be a very good idea.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkYeah, I've wondered why we don't do it overtly. Ask Israel to take care of Pakistan, and give them money, investment opportunities, or something else they ask ;) I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige. :)
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Ahhhmmm... are you talking about Mumbai?
If Mumbai was in any other nuclear capable country other than India, there'd have been a war last month.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com linkWhich raises an interesting question (and I admit I don't know the right answer): should we be proud of the fact that we didn't retaliate, or ashamed?
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Look, you trying to be a smartass, or did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part? Think of carpet bombing, atomic bombs, etc; the sample you gave is genuinely dubious, life is not all black and white, and war is less so.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Look, you trying to be a smartass
Try being less defensive. My question was asked in good faith.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part?
Not at all. I know soldiers who faced with a choice of not killing someone who might be a guerrila or killing (the same) someone who might be a civilian opted on the side of self-preservation, very much on purpose. What choice would you make?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
One does have an obligation to avoid civilian casualties. Even when there are times when civilian casualties are unavoidable, I would hesitate to use the word 'acceptable' in describing those situations. Just War Doctrine[^]
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Look, you trying to be a smartass
Try being less defensive. My question was asked in good faith.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part?
Not at all. I know soldiers who faced with a choice of not killing someone who might be a guerrila or killing (the same) someone who might be a civilian opted on the side of self-preservation, very much on purpose. What choice would you make?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sorry I was crabby :) Your question sounded sarcastic to me.
Oakman wrote:
I know soldiers who faced with a choice of not killing someone who might be a guerrila or killing (the same) someone who might be a civilian opted on the side of self-preservation, very much on purpose. What choice would you make?
Tough to say, given I don't have a military background.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Sorry I was crabby :) Your question sounded sarcastic to me.
Oakman wrote:
I know soldiers who faced with a choice of not killing someone who might be a guerrila or killing (the same) someone who might be a civilian opted on the side of self-preservation, very much on purpose. What choice would you make?
Tough to say, given I don't have a military background.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Tough to say, given I don't have a military background.
Fair answer, but then, is it possible for a civilian to decide whether any soldier is immoral when he shoots someone who might have done him harm? Can anyone other than the soldier know?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I've always thought this pandering to 'fair', 'precise', 'clean' and 'humanitarian' wars would simply lead to more fighting. The basic tennet of war is that it's something so terrible, so costly and so destructive to all involved that no one would want to start one. If you firmly believe your neighbour can and would vapourize a percentage of your population, you don't start a fight.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
MidwestLimey wrote:
If you firmly believe your neighbour can and would vapourize a percentage of your population
I am extremely suspicious of my neighbour's dog. I think he is in the pay of the CIA (or KGB).
-
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
Steve_Harris wrote:
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
If morality is not real, then all such questions are meaningless. And, if we cannot discover and know the content of morality, then all such questions are pointless. AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
-
One does have an obligation to avoid civilian casualties. Even when there are times when civilian casualties are unavoidable, I would hesitate to use the word 'acceptable' in describing those situations. Just War Doctrine[^]
oilFactotum wrote:
Just War Doctrine[^]
Patton once observed that men that don't fuck can't fight. Why exactly do you think these guys who wear skirts are experts on the when and the who and the why of combat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Look, you trying to be a smartass, or did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part? Think of carpet bombing, atomic bombs, etc; the sample you gave is genuinely dubious, life is not all black and white, and war is less so.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Stand up to be seen. Speak up to be heard. Shut up to be appreciated.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Look, you trying to be a smartass
Try being less defensive. My question was asked in good faith.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
did you miss the "kill civilians on purpose" part?
Not at all. I know soldiers who faced with a choice of not killing someone who might be a guerrila or killing (the same) someone who might be a civilian opted on the side of self-preservation, very much on purpose. What choice would you make?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
If morality is not real, then all such questions are meaningless. And, if we cannot discover and know the content of morality, then all such questions are pointless. AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
Ilíon wrote:
AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
Have you looked in the mirror recently?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I've always thought this pandering to 'fair', 'precise', 'clean' and 'humanitarian' wars would simply lead to more fighting. The basic tennet of war is that it's something so terrible, so costly and so destructive to all involved that no one would want to start one. If you firmly believe your neighbour can and would vapourize a percentage of your population, you don't start a fight.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
MidwestLimey wrote:
If you firmly believe your neighbour can and would vapourize a percentage of your population, you don't start a fight.
Past evidence from the 1960's [^] suggests that statement is probably incorrect. Your 'basic tenet' is, unfortunately, not held by most others to be true.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
In a time of war, does one's moral responsibility to try and avoid civilian casualties increase in proportion to the force one attacks with, or are any civilian casualties unacceptable under any circumstances? Alternatively, are civilian casualties an acceptable side-effect of war?
If morality is not real, then all such questions are meaningless. And, if we cannot discover and know the content of morality, then all such questions are pointless. AND, if morality is real and if we can discover and know its content, does it not behoove us all to see to our own selves and behaviors and attitudes first?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Just War Doctrine[^]
Patton once observed that men that don't fuck can't fight. Why exactly do you think these guys who wear skirts are experts on the when and the who and the why of combat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Since the doctrine is not discussing combat, your question is meaningless.