I wonder why anyone would call killing wrong. I assume that every piece of meat on my plate represents a kill. Killing people is wrong? Well no, murder is wrong, there are many good reasons to kill someone.
I ask because it was stated by someone that killing a person in war is 'always wrong' while I would say it is almost always the right thing to do.
Elsewhere it was remarked "How much bonus would you need to kill someone." or some such noise. Well I got no bonus at all, I went in fat and desperate and came out lean and mean, bonus enough for me.
Every one of us kills to live, vegans or virgins or whatever included, the whole of our society functions on meat and slaughter, are all the processors at the to-fu factory vegans? How bought the guy who drove it to the store?
We make war and stand ready to make war for the survival of our nation. I remember the quote because it was drummed into me, but for the life of me I cannot remember who said it "You have your lives because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf."
Your lives! All the love and joy, all the cats and dogs, your car and your wife, every good thing you possess is paid for in blood. There is a time when you realize this and shoulder the knowledge....then you are a grown-up.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
There are no absolute moral standards. At least according to me. As such, nothing is wrong per se.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would say the killing of a human being always represents a moral failing. If you kill in self defense, you may have committed no moral wrong, but the person who you killed did.
I'd be surprised if someone could come up with an instance where someone actively kills someone that doesn't involve a moral wrong somewhere in the situation.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, you are grown up when you learn to distinguish between empty rationalizations fed to you by someone who needs you to do what they say and the reality that no one person in that type of world would be strong enough to live any sort of meaningful life alone.
Violence is not always wrong, but it isn't usually the right answer....and condemning random violence is what allows us to have our lives as we know it.
If you were right, then there wouldn't be a life worth living at all.
Anyone can pull a trigger. Even a child.
Kwea
[ November 16, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
If two people were starving to death in a cabin cut off from supply in the winter, one killing the other to eat him would seem to be a ethically neutral.
A struggle to determine the fittest and then survival. Either one dies or both die.
BC
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
How do vegans kill?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Sharpened carrots.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Violence is what holds the wolves at bay, Imagine a totally passive population, tomorrow we put some do-gooder well meaning drug into the water and we all go down and 'don't study war no more!'
If you are an attractive woman you would be the sexual slave of a brutal man in a matter of months. If you are a man you would be a laborer, a 'drawer of water and hewer of wood.' If you could not work you would die, and you would probably be castrated, unless you had some trait that was desired to breed true. Blond hair and Blue eyes might get scarce if efforts were not made to keep some bloodlines.
This is simple truth...the bones of this civilization are made of the resolute willingness to kill to protect it.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I think that JH is saying Vegan's could not practice their particular diet without the support of a bunch of meat eating red necks, so they are on the same moral level anyway. Anyone who eats meat is on the same moral level of the butcher as I believe Twain once said.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If two people were starving to death in a cabin cut off from supply in the winter, one killing the other to eat him would seem to be a ethically neutral.
A struggle to determine the fittest and then survival. Either one dies or both die.
Nope. The one killing is putting his need before the other. Even if both agree to draw straws, the winner is putting his need before the other.
quote:If you are an attractive woman you would be the sexual slave of a brutal man in a matter of months. If you are a man you would be a laborer, a 'drawer of water and hewer of wood.' If you could not work you would die, and you would probably be castrated, unless you had some trait that was desired to breed true. Blond hair and Blue eyes might get scarce if efforts were not made to keep some bloodlines.
This is simple truth...the bones of this civilization are made of the resolute willingness to kill to protect it.
And each of those would come about because of someone else's willingness to commit immoral acts.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If one died and the other ate him that would be ethically neutral. If one killed the other, it is most assuredly not.
Society is based upon cooperation, not violence. Violence is always an option, but it is counterproductive in most modern situations.
I was mugged when I was in the Army, and I fought back. My using violence wasn't wrong, but the violence done to me was wrong. I had done nothing wrong or offensive, they were just preying on a lone soldier. Unfortunately for them I was more capable than most of defending myself.
Very few things are all good or all bad. Without the means to fight back I would be dead now, but if I take that to the extreme that same capacity for violence within myself could be extremely destructive....to myself and to society at large.
Kwea
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: And each of those would come about because of someone else's willingness to commit immoral acts.
Gee it looks like someone has just admitted that Jar Head is right! There are people out their willing and eager to do immoral acts! Billions of them!
Now that you understand it, be glad he stood his watch, and be glad I go to stand mine.
I have just watched a liberal become a conservative, it is blinding in its magnificence!
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Um, did you just call me a liberal?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My SIDES hurt. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Also, do you actually read entire posts before responding? My premise is that the intentional killing of a human being is a strong (I'd say definite) indication that a moral wrong has been committed. I gave explicit examples where the person doing the killing is NOT the one who committed the moral wrong, and the person being killed was.
Seriously, learn take a minute to examine the posts you're responding to in order to be sure you're making some sense.
Dagonee
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: If one died and the other ate him that would be ethically neutral. If one killed the other, it is most assuredly not.
Oh I left out the part where by the time one of them starves to death there would be insufficient meat left to sustain the other.
"That's the problem when you eat a chinese guy, an hour later you are hungry again!"
BC
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What about action, intent and gravity?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Murder is still murder......
Nice try though. (not)
There are people who are either a) too "stoopid" to know any better
or
b) So arrogant they believe they know a better way
That is why we have laws.
And jails.
It is wrong, and society polices itself far better this way than any situation you might put forth.
If all that mattered was force of arms then people like you would run everything.....at least until people like me shot back at you.
Instead we have a society where you can speak you mind, such as it is, and all I have to do is let you do so to render you ineffective.
It is hard to shoot straight when everyone is laughing at you, isn't it?
No force necessary to stop colossal stupidity.....so much for your "everything is based on force" argument, huh?
Kwea
[ November 16, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Every killing is unique, there are no blanket statements like, wrong on general principle, everybody is going to die, each death deserves its own dignity and uniqueness, do not trivialize them with generalities.
Even these poor heathens we are killing over there. They have their structure of privaliges and rewards and duty and obligation and I am sure a whole mass of stuff that they are trying to protect. They are suicidaly eager to do us in to save their way of life. Why do they lose?
Its like what was said above, our society is better at cooperation, realizing person potential, we have them because we have air, sea and logistical power, intel and support. They are not less dedicated, the society they are trying to protect cannot help them as much as ours can help our violent men. So they die and die, 50 to 1 or more and our way of life will become their way of life, and then we will not have to fight about whose way of life is better, there will just be the one.
"Can't we all just get along?"
NO they decided that they could not contenece our way of life to be, so they die and die and so does the tribal brutality they represent.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: If all that mattered was force of arms then people like you would run everything.....at least until people like me shot back at you.
Hmmm... then you would be like me.
quote: Instead we have a society where you can speak you mind, such as it is, and all I have to do is let you do so to render you ineffective.
yes you got me! You brute.
quote:It is hard to shoot straight when everyone is laughing at you, isn't it?
No, why would that make a difference?
BC
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Killing a person is always (in any normal human circumstances) wrong, even in the name of trying to protect yourself or someone else.
This is because the moral cost of taking a life is so high that only in the rarest and most unusual circumstances would the benefits gained from it be so direct and so great that it would warrant such a cost. What's more, people lack the judgement necessary to see the future and know whether any given case is one of those rare exceptions where the benefits of killing outweigh the moral costs. Thus, because those exceptions are so rare and you can't know when you are in one of those exceptions, it is always the wrong decision to kill.
For instance, if someone breaks into a house and attacks the child there with a knife, it is possible he will kill the child - and thus by killing him first you save the child. But it is also possible he would not kill the child - and thus killing him would be unneccesary. You don't know which case it is, and it is not right to destroy a life on the gamble that he was going to kill, unless you can be certain, which you cannot. The correct solution is to aim for a compromise in which you might save both lives - in all but a few extreme cases, those compromises can be found, whether they are shooting a leg, giving in to demands, etc.
Now, if we were omniscient, then we could know when killing would be for the greater good, and then it would be okay to do it. But since we don't, we must follow the rule that killing is wrong - we must respect the right to life.
As for animals, I'm not really convinced they are people. Nor plants. So, I don't think killing them is nearly as wrong.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I always found it hard to shoot straight when I had the giggles.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I will never be like you. Why in the world would I want to regress?
The facts don't support either of your conclusions...not that I expect you to admit that, or that it will stop you.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: This was a response to Jar Head's last post.
I think you're trying to have an argument no one else is actually participating in. I don't think anyone has said violence isn't sometimes necessary. What they are saying is that it represents a failing, which you seem to acknowledge in your last post.
Dagonee
[ November 16, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
quote: I have just watched a liberal become a conservative, it is blinding in its magnificence!
Dagonee, a liberal? Since when?
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
quote: For instance, if someone breaks into a house and attacks the child there with a knife, it is possible he will kill the child - and thus by killing him first you save the child. But it is also possible he would not kill the child - and thus killing him would be unneccesary. You don't know which case it is, and it is not right to destroy a life on the gamble that he was going to kill, unless you can be certain, which you cannot. The correct solution is to aim for a compromise in which you might save both lives - in all but a few extreme cases, those compromises can be found, whether they are shooting a leg, giving in to demands, etc.
I would kill him for breaking into my house, that is enough chance to take on any stranger.
Oh, is all that rattling on about Bean Counter again? I guess I won the argument and can go to bed now.
God that boy pushes your buttons... what is it about what he says that makes such hostility, So he has the arrogance of a new buck, so you have to fling mud at him? Thats all it is and you should be ashamed of the need to tear a man down for standing tall. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Again, no one is really arguing with you, although people may disagree about specifics.
And BC is not standing tall. He's mischaracterizing what people are saying and refusing to deal with any substantive responses in anything but a glib manner.
And he called me liberal. It's not that I'm insulted, it's just proof he's not that bright.
Dagonee
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I would say the killing of a human being always represents a moral failing. If you kill in self defense, you may have committed no moral wrong, but the person who you killed did.
Nifty idea Dagonee. I like it (the logic and reasoning, not the killing. )
I would say that the killing of a human being is never right. It can be justified but cannot be right (or morally desirable).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually I disagree with Xap (big suprise there, huh?) in that I would shoot him if I could. He broke into MY house and threatened MY child? I place far more value on my childs life than on his, regardless of who he is or what he may or may not do.
No problem with violence there, although it would make me sick afterwards. I would error on the side of caution towards my child rather than an intruder.
But it wouldn't be my first choice, and I wouldn't shoot him outside my house for running through my yard on the CHANCE he might someday do violence to me or mine.
It would be a failure of the system to ever get to that point, so the chances aren't good for it to happen.
What it wouldn't be is easy, or guilt-free; but it probably would be necessary given that type of event.
The fact that it is the exception rather than the rule proves that in most cases society ISN"T based on violence, except as a last resource.
Kwea
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, affirmative defenses. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Unlike BC, I have been there, so I know the results.
There is a difference between standing tall and being unsuffereable.
Besides, I just don't like people who don't eevn bother to read posts before they reply, and who go out of their way to piss others off.
I don't care one way or another about him...even if he is posting under more than one name here at hatrack.
It never ceases to amaze me that people don't realize how destinctive a posting style can be.... Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
In Ender's game, everyone saw it fit for Ender to kill off the Hive Queen and all of her kind. But later on, they realized that she wasn't a threat and labeled Ender as the Xenocide.
Maybe killing is necessary in certain situations, but if you understand the reasons and cirumstances surrounding the situation, a non-violent solution can always be found.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Actually I disagree with Xap (big suprise there, huh?) in that I would shoot him if I could. He broke into MY house and threatened MY child? I place far more value on my childs life than on his, regardless of who he is or what he may or may not do.
I think most people place more value on the life of family members, their own life, and the life of innocents. However, I think this is based on emotion and attachments more than on what is actually fair or objectively right. I think God, the only truly fair being I can imagine, would weigh the two lives equally.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That is why, of course, God kills the wicked so often.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe killing is necessary in certain situations, but if you understand the reasons and cirumstances surrounding the situation, a non-violent solution can always be found.
I don't agree, depending on how you're defining "circumstances surrounding the situation." If someone is coming at you with a knife, and you're half his size holding a gun, you better shoot him in the chest if you want to live. You're choices are basically die or kill.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'd think there was something biological about the drive to protect those who are related to you.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I have no position to defend, when I answer glibly, you have been answered and refuted. It is not my way to waste words, when the balloon is popped why keep poking it?
You are not a liberal we all get it, sheesh I made the classic blunder
'All those who are liberals are wrong, but not all those who are wrong are liberals, I see now!'
I know what you mean about reverencing death JH, the practices of the native Americans concerning the hunt come to mind. Deciding each death is wrong is just a way of avoiding the fact of each individual death and feeling like you have faced it.
quote: Your death is you greatest adviser, when you need guidance turn to it and ask, and it will say I am not going to take you yet ... or you will have your final gesture with death
Don Juan
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:'All those who are liberals are wrong, but not all those who are wrong are liberals, I see now!'
And yet you fail to realize that the whole point here is I wasn't wrong, even by your standards - at least the standards you used in your response to me. Sheesh.
LEARN TO READ.
Dagonee
[ November 16, 2004, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Anyone getting the feeling that Bean Counter and Jar Head are one and the same?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not asking what God would do...even though there are plenty of quotes I could use to prove you wrong... ....
I am saying that the lives of people safe in bed, not harming anyone, mean more to me than the life of an armed intruder.
If you want to play with the lives of your family, go ahead and do it.
I will shoot him, and spend the rest of my days regretting it...but I would regret the possible alternatives more. I am not willing to entrust the safety of my family to a man who is armed, and has already demonstrated his willingness to harm others by his very presence in my house.
As I said, I would rather see him outside and call the police.....that is why violence isn't the end-all be-all here in the US....at least not yet.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yup.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Maybe....maybe not.
Hmmmm. Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Yes I am the Tater... you got me! Hee Hee Hee
Seriously who is immitating my style? Stop it!
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not your style being imitated so much as a seeming inability to understand the posts of others, or at least to reply in a manner reflecting such understanding.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If two people were starving to death in a cabin cut off from supply in the winter, one killing the other to eat him would seem to be a ethically neutral.
There is actually a case about this. Here Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First case I read in Criminal Law. I'm not averse to a legal defense of justification either excusing or mitigating the criminal liability in such a situation, but I wouldn't consider such an act moral.
Dagonee
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: I don't agree, depending on how you're defining "circumstances surrounding the situation." If someone is coming at you with a knife, and you're half his size holding a gun, you better shoot him in the chest if you want to live. You're choices are basically die or kill.
By circumstances, I mean the motives for coming at someone with a knife. I'm sure that the two people in this situation could come up with some compromise that doesn't involve killing.
I guess I'm trying to say that deep down inside, no one kills just for the pleasure of it - everyone has some motive that they feel justifies it.
Of course I may be blatantly wrong.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I'm sure that the two people in this situation could come up with some compromise that doesn't involve killing.
Really? So if the person being run at says "Wait, wait. Let's talk about this." you think the one doing the running will stop and agree to that?
edit: running at the person with a knife, that is.
[ November 17, 2004, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By circumstances, I mean the motives for coming at someone with a knife. I'm sure that the two people in this situation could come up with some compromise that doesn't involve killing.
I guess I'm trying to say that deep down inside, no one kills just for the pleasure of it - everyone has some motive that they feel justifies it.
Of course I may be blatantly wrong.
OK, so you're saying if all parties involved truly looked for an alternative one could be found. I'll buy that.
I interpreted as saying a given person could always find an alternative on their own. Sorry abou that.
I do have a major caveat on serial killers fitting into that, but I suppose intervention early enough could stop even then, as long as we're talking in the hypothetical.
Dagonee
[ November 17, 2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Really? So if the person being run at says "Wait, wait. Let's talk about this." you think the one doing the running will stop and agree to that?
RRR, in my first post I said
quote:Maybe killing is necessary in certain situations, but if you understand the reasons and cirumstances surrounding the situation, a non-violent solution can always be found.
I believe this one of those "certain situations" that it would be necessary in.
quote: I interpreted as saying a given person could always find an alternative on their own. Sorry abou that.
No problem Dagonee Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: "On Mars the solution to a state of famine seems obvious, a portion of the population is selected to serve the greater good by becoming food, it seems obvious and it was a great honor to be so selected..."
Valintine Micheal Smith
Never think that your particular tastes are universal codes of conduct, they are just local customs that work well enough to get by.
I think eating the cabin boy was cowardly, one of the adults should have killed himself to feed the others. That would be Heroism.
BC
[ November 17, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Bean Counter ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Irami, Andrew uses that case in his Legal Ethics and Contemporary Moral Issues class. I think it was his first case in law school, too, Dag.
In fact, he recently went over the case and said, "I know what you're thinking. Ewwwww, turnips." Apparently no one laughed, but I thought it was hilarious.
As to the issue at hand, I feel that it's my duty to protect myself (and my loved ones) from an attacker and I will do whatever I have to do for us all to survive. If a stranger was in my house, holding a knife over my child, I would shoot him without hesitation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that he means to kill my child - what other purpose could he possibly have?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I believe this one of those "certain situations" that it would be necessary in.
Ah. Sorry, I didn't notice that. Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
No problem RRR.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's a related issue - someone who threatens violence is voluntarily assuming the risk of violence being used to stop him.
This in and of itself does not justify the violence, but it does shift the scales against the aggressor.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: quote: "On Mars the solution to a state of famine seems obvious, a portion of the population is selected to serve the greater good by becoming food, it seems obvious and it was a great honor to be so selected..."
Valintine Micheal Smith
Never think that your particular tastes are universal codes of conduct, they are just local customs that work well enough to get by.
If you must quote, please at least learn how to spell the name of the person you are quoting....even if it is a fictional person.
Feel free to move to Mars then...with the lag, we won't have to worry about any more posts for a while....
Also, if all you can come up with to justify a moral stance is a quote from SIASL, perhaps you shoudl rethink it....assuming you bothered to on the first place, that is....
Kwea
[ November 17, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: I think eating the cabin boy was cowardly, one of the adults should have killed himself to feed the others. That would be Heroism.
Hey, the Bean Counter isn't that bad.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not with some fava beans maybe, and onions....lots of onions...
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
a fine chianti.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I would argue that there are times when killing someone is to be the preferred of several options, or have none of you read Ender's Game?
We could incarcerate killers, but I would prefer them to be publicly killed, it is more of a deterrent and it brings some closure to those near the victims.
To take up the 'guy who broke in' analogy, I would not only kill him, but I would put up a picture of him in my yard that said "This guy is dead because he tried to break into my house and harm my child, you want to try your luck?"
They would likely make me take his head down from a pole.
BC
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
On Mars? I doubt anyone would care....
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It warms my heart to know our nation has given you the responsibility of defending it with a weapon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would argue that there are times when killing someone is to be the preferred of several options, or have none of you read Ender's Game?
Yes, and in each case where Ender kills, there is something that could have been done to avoid it. Maybe not by Ender, but by somebody.
The first kid could have not been a bully, or the monitor monitors could have protected Ender. Bonso could have been treated or iced sooner. Had they not sent the fleet after the buggers, there would have been no need for the third war.
I don't think anyone is saying that we always have the knowledge necessary to implement the alternatives. But the alternatives exist.
Dagonee
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
You mistake me, I am saying that there are times when you chose killing in full knowlege of the options. You do so because the result is better. Ender knew he could just hurt and move on, he prefered to END the threat for good and make an example for others to beware of. That way he did not have to fight the same fight over and over, or fear the same bully twice.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, and that philosophy is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that there's always a way to avoid the killing and get a better outcome, assuming cooperation from all sides.
Dagonee
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Kind of a dream world assumption there...
BC
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
psst, mack - you're on a roll tonight - Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kind of a dream world assumption there...
Well, a hypothetical world, anyway. Everyone on this thread has pretty much said sometimes killing is necessary.
The next step in the discussion is whether or not such necessity always indicates a moral failing that could be avoided. You've yet to give a single counter example.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Almost as much as the assumption that "might makes right".......
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I thought everybody listed morally responsible killing, killings for the common good, and for personal safety, and in war.
What are you looking for? A killing where both are morally in the right, where niether is acting in an evil manner and whoever wins, the outcome is good for society... Hmmm tricky but not impossible.
BC
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
What irks me isn't that BC and Jarhead are serving their country proudly it is the glee with which they talk about subjugating by force. The idea that violence may be neccessary isn't that hard for most folks to swallow, but wallowing in it like a pig in a bog kicks in the gag reflex.
[ November 17, 2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I ask because it was stated by someone that killing a person in war is 'always wrong' while I would say it is almost always the right thing to do.
Elsewhere it was remarked "How much bonus would you need to kill someone." or some such noise. Well I got no bonus at all, I went in fat and desperate and came out lean and mean, bonus enough for me.
Let me address this, since both statements -- albeit misquoted -- are mine.
It is always wrong to kill someone. Always. Period.
It is, however, sometimes the only responsible resolution to a larger dilemma.
That does not make it RIGHT. It doesn't even make it less wrong. It makes it justifiable, but still wrong.
I think people often take too simplistic a view of the world; the idea I'm fighting against here is that something is "right" if there's a justification for it. I agree with Jar Head, of course, that the military teaches people to think in this fashion; it would be almost impossible for soldiers to be paid to kill other people otherwise: the killing is justified, and therefore "right," and therefore not a sin.
This is, I submit, an inherently corrupt and utilitarian way of recognizing sin.
My second quote, of course, was a question directed at Stryker -- who's contemplating the military because he'd like to feel useful and needs some cash for college. But there are far better and more productive ways to be useful to one's country; the unique thing about the military is that you can be useful in the specific capacity of being hired to kill people. So if Stryker's primary concern, then, is money for college, I wondered how much money it would take for him to be willing to kill people; if that amount is offered to him, the military may be a decent career.
I myself contemplated the military when I got out of high school; they dangled several carrots. But I decided that if I wouldn't accept ten million dollars to shoot a hobo, I wouldn't accept two hundred thousand for pushing a red button to hurl a cruise missile.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
For the record I have already served my country. My only task now is to keep an eye out for the weird on the interstate, and given the amount of weird that is normal it is no easy task.
I have considered going over to Iraq as a Civilian Contractor driver, the pay is astonishing but they make you pay to submit a resume which chaffes my ass.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:What irks me isn't that BC and Jarhead are serving their country proudly it is the glee with which they talk about subjugating by force. The idea that violence may be neccessary isn't that hard for most folks to swallow, but wallowing in it like a pig in a bog kicks in the gag reflex.
You know, I think a lot of that may be a coping mechanism. I'm not trying to speak for Jar Head or anyone else, but being married to a firefighter, I would sometimes be shocked at the black humor and the way they spoke about the people they treated. I finally had to accept that they had to find a way to deal with what they saw on a day in day out basis - and by turning it into something that they could laugh and poke fun at, it made it more bearable.
I mean, if you knew some of the statements made by firefighters about the people they see - it would turn your stomach. But, I'm not the one that sees kids dead in car wrecks because their parents didn't use a car seat. I don't take care of shooting and stabbing victims night in and night out. I don't drive to a rescue call and get fired at. (they have had to send the rescue unit in to the city body shop for bullet holes more than once) I don't have to pull bodies out of burned up houses or inform people their loved ones are dead.
This is one way they cope. I think soldiers put on a show of bravado that helps them cope with what they do, so I don't judge them for those statements.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)