What's the difference between a soldier, an assassin, and a mercenary?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If you ever will walk a place of war, you will know where the crossover is immediately. You will not even need somebody explaing it to you, you will realise it all by yourself.

Perhaps you're right! But if that ever happens, I might need someone to explain to me where my "change morality now" button is.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Perhaps you're right! But if that ever happens, I might need someone to explain to me where my "change morality now" button is.

That's kind of exactly how it works. Hence, the point that although certain things may be distasteful, that doesn't make them immoral.

Morality (and more poignantly, ethics), has always been subject to context. The absolute deontologist will contend that what is wrong will always be wrong. Unfortunately for him, though, the human experience puts a strain on this argument as he will undoubtedly find kill-or-be-killed to be an unresolvable paradox.

Good and evil must be a choice - not the default state. So if one is put into a position with where the only choices are to commit what the absolutist considers to be "evil", it would become the default state. The reason this doesn't work is due to the fact that the words themselves MUST define a specific state, otherwise they'd have no meaning other than "is". As such, let's say Bob has to kill a man to prevent him from killing Bob's wife. If Bob allows his wife to be killed, that could be considered an evil act. If Bob kills the person who threatens his wife, that could also be considered evil. As such, describing Bob's state as evil really describes nothing more than "Bob is".

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

That is far from the only way.
I'm not one to defend any deontological approach, but it could be argued that
an evil is always equally evil, but that selecting it over a greater evil is a
good thing to do.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

That is far from the only way.
I'm not one to defend any deontological approach, but it could be argued that
an evil is always equally evil, but that selecting it over a greater evil is a
good thing to do.

That's where perspective comes in.

From the perspective of the greater evil, any "evil" required to prevent it would not be evil.

Take a straight line. Consider yourself starting at the center. Evil is on the left, and good is on the right (pun intended). Let's say that there is a dot on the far left side of the line, and another only halfway down the left side. From the perspective of the far left dot, the not-so-far left dot is on the right.

That's one of the governing principals of perspective. Indeed, from the center perspective both dots are evil. However, considering that morality itself relies upon intention, only the perspective from which the act is committed can qualify/justify the act itself, and whether or not it is indeed evil.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Good and evil must be a choice - not the default state. So if one is put into a position with where the only choices are to commit what the absolutist considers to be "evil", it would become the default state. The reason this doesn't work is due to the fact that the words themselves MUST define a specific state, otherwise they'd have no meaning other than "is". As such, let's say Bob has to kill a man to prevent him from killing Bob's wife. If Bob allows his wife to be killed, that could be considered an evil act. If Bob kills the person who threatens his wife, that could also be considered evil. As such, describing Bob's state as evil really describes nothing more than "Bob is".

The only way to resolve this paradox is to define evil by putting it in context. That means, what is evil at one state does not neccessarily make it evil in another.

You've made a mistake. The point of view that "if Bob does kill the man, that is evil" is one point of view. The point of view that "if Bob does not kill the man, that is evil" is another point of view. There is only a paradox for those who would claim to support both points of view.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

You've made a mistake. The point of view that "if Bob does kill the man, that is evil" is one point of view. The point of view that "if Bob does not kill the man, that is evil" is another point of view. There is only a paradox for those who would claim to support both points of view.

I don't see how they are two points of view.

In either case, you're allowing someone to be killed, either by your own hand or your decision to NOT prevent the murder.

I'd like to hear your logic on how killing in defense of one's family is evil, by the way.

This isn't very original but I think it fits.

Tinker, Tailor,
Soldier, Sailor,
Rich Man, Poor Man,
Beggar Man,
Thief. Or is it fool?

Reguardless of who is fighting the war, soldier, assasin or mercenary(NGO) it is ultimately a cost/benefit analysis based on political, cultural and social dynamics. I have often heard it said that war is diplomacy by other means, I think Clauswitz said it first.

No nation goes to war in a vacuum, thus neither does any soldier, assasin or mercenary(NGO). We can only hope that it isn't entered into lightly.