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 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.
-
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.
I'd disagree. Like the India Pakistan crisis a few years ago there was much blustering, rattling of swords, and other threats made but in the end it was resolved peacefully. Possibly excepting the India/China and China/Russia border clashes (I'm not sure on the timelines) no nuclear power has ever gone to war with a second nuclear power.
-
Since the doctrine is not discussing combat, your question is meaningless.
oilFactotum wrote:
Since the doctrine is not discussing combat, your question is meaningless.
Since the doctrine uses the word "combat" five separate times; four as the subject under discussion, I guess you don't know what you are talking about -- again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Which 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.
From some of us observing from afar it would appear to be open season on India. One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard. But it's no skin off my nose. Good Luck.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Since the doctrine is not discussing combat, your question is meaningless.
Since the doctrine uses the word "combat" five separate times; four as the subject under discussion, I guess you don't know what you are talking about -- again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
From anyone else I would find your dishonesty shocking. It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants. In other words all 5 instances are used to describe individuals NOT involved in combat and how they should be treated. I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war. What is your position?
-
From anyone else I would find your dishonesty shocking. It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants. In other words all 5 instances are used to describe individuals NOT involved in combat and how they should be treated. I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war. What is your position?
oilFactotum wrote:
It uses the word 'combat' once - "A particular danger in wartime is brutality toward those not engaged in combat." Four times it refers to non-combatants.
Here's a clue: non-combatants are those who are not engaged in combat. So either we are discussing combat when we discuss those who are not engaged in it or we are not. All five references are the same. Since I have a great deal of trouble conceiving of there being something called a non-combatant in a discussion that is not about combat (likewise I have trouble conceving of talking about dishonesty unless we imply that there is something called honesty as well) I am afraid that I find your hair-splitting to be a poor attempt to save face but without validity. Would you like to try again?
oilFactotum wrote:
I've already stated that I believe that there is a moral obligation to avoid civilian deaths during war.
Killing someone you are positive is a civilian when it can be avoided, is the act of a coward and dishonorable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:02 PM
-
From some of us observing from afar it would appear to be open season on India. One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard. But it's no skin off my nose. Good Luck.
MrPlankton
Multicultural Diversity Training, the new Socialist Reeducation Camp-light.
MrPlankton wrote:
One wonders how much bitch slapping has to occur before "enough!" is heard.
That's the question the Israelis were asking themselves until a week an a half ago. Well we hear as much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Europe, do you think, when India decides it has had enough - or is that level of opprobrium reserved for the Jewish state?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface