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

[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.

[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.

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.

[August]

The differences as I see them:

The definitions of Mercenary, Soldier and Assassin overlap somewhat. All three share common characteristics which make categorization difficult but not impossible.

1. An assassin is just a specialist whose mission is to kill a specific individual. He can be either a mercenary or a soldier equally.

2. A mercenary is a soldier who works for either private organizations or foreign governments. A non mercenary soldier only serves his own country.

3. A mercenary can be hired individually for a specific mission (such as an assassination) whereas a soldier always enlists to a nationally supported group for a period of time.

4. A mercenaries pay is a reward for a job done. A soldiers pay is an allowance to maintain his effectiveness.

5. A mercenary is a lot less likely than a soldier to deliberately sacrifice his life for the cause for which he fights.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

SB appears to me to follow a principle of "total war" in which he justifies any
act, however despicable, in the name of military advantage; the slaughter
of countless millions for a inch of ground.

I'm not happy with that phrase of total war, due to the historical connotation.

I certainly do not argue to slaughter millions for an inch of a ground. In fact, it is highly ublikley that I would ever justify a war over some inches of ground only.

However, I ceertainly argued in the past, and still do so, that if the decision is made to let lose the dogs of war, one should put all might and power into the effort and should not shy away from doing what is needed to turn this terrible effort into a result one has planned for when making the decision for war.

Just look at the many examples where military operations have been called into life, but withiout heart and detemrination, and without investing into it what it would have needed: especially the UN operations are a history of failures over failures over failures. But also national wars all to often have failed to succeed.

All the loss of life, theirs and ours, all that destruction - in vain. And that in the name of a misunderstood "humanity" and "humane ways to wage wars". Bullsh!t.

If you are not ready to let lose hell itself if that is needed - DON'T START WAR, then. Be cautious, careful and serious and hesitent to make a decision for war.

Note that this attitude of mine has three effects: 1. I am more cautious and hesitent to accept a decision for a war, than many other people here. 2. I weigh the reason pro and contra much more serious and concerned and far less thoughtless and easyminded than many other people. 3. But if I accept a decision for war, then I am willing to invest and to do what is needed to crush the enemy at all costs, and making sure the mission objectives get acchieved - undisputed, uncompromised, and in total. I cannot justify by my own morals and ethical standards to accept a war if not willing to do so and wasting all that killing and destruction in vain.

War is, or is not. Death or life. Fight, or don't. If you have doubts, and are not sure over your motives and your mental ability to carry it out - stay the hell away from war for the sake of your own peace of mind.

Just one thing you should not do: thinking that you can have a little bit of war, but not too much in order to stay civilised. War by definition is the absence of civilisation and order. If you don't understand this, then you do not know what war is.

I strongly believe that everything that makes war worse, helps to make it happen less often, and everything that tries to humanise it, decreases the chances to succeed and make it happening more often nevertheless.



And that perspective-versus-morality thing. The shift from peace to war chnages perspectives indeed. While killing somebody in a state of peace morally is labvelled a crime, in war it is not only allowed, but it is the intention of the effort, and even more, it may be necessary - for example to save the life of others you value dearer to you, or whose life you rate higher in value. Another thing that in peace is not liked to be done: valuin lifes against each other. But in war you do. By the standards of peace, you are evil, then. By the standards of war, you are not, maybe even are acting morally, according to war standards.

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.

No, you would not, believe me. It springs into the eye, then.

Do not understand me wrong, I never have fought in a war, but I have seen scenes and places of wars, and terror. That was in Algeria, and in Eastern Turkey. I also witnessed one terror blast in Berlin in my youth. I claim what I said above due to these unpleasant memories of mine.

If you witness war, you will recognise it all by yourself. You either switch two different assessment of the moral implications of the situation you see all by yourself, or your mind deadlocks and refuses to let go assessing ther situation according to your peacetime morals. Then you have a problem, for the opictures will haunt you, and what you maybe need to do will push you into a moral dilemma you cannot solve, and a certain kind of confusion is the result that can haunt you for years to come.

I once talked with a British professional, who was soldier with heart and passion, and he said something which I believe myself very strongly, too, maybe that is why we got a good wire to each other from the first second on. He said that the grim things you eventually do by your own hands in war, will only haunt you if you are not sure about your motives and motivations, if you have doubts about your cause. He himself, he said, had no sleepless nights over the things he witnessed, for however he thinks about the casues, he saw them as just, and necessary.

Of course, although this is probably true, this attitude holds a risk. It may influence soldiers to eventually take an uncritical stand towards the policies and breasons they have been sent to war for, and they are stubborn to stick to them, no matter what, as a means of self-protection. anbd indeed I often (not always) see an almost naive attitude of innocence and believing in soldiers when it comes to their government's policies. A president may tell them something - and many believe every word of it!

Well, there is always risks invovled, even in peace - and even more in war.



Be hesitent to call for wars.

But if there is war, make nothing less than the unconditional destruction of the enemy your goal, and then put into it whatever is needed.

the most likely historic result will be numerically less, more determined wars. Is that immoral? The Un authoprized a plethora of miliztary operation nhere and there, and fails to legitimiate the needed robustness and failed to establiszh the needed support of these missions. That'S why so damn many military operations by the UN are failures. Now, is that moral?

I think the UN should be forbidden vote for or against miliztary actions. It is incompetent and inadequate a gremium to care for such things. Good intentions and best wishes mean nothing. Nothing.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.

As for the last part - killing in defense of your family - this seems to me to be another version of the sniper and the bomber and the million people, no? Anyway it's quite simple. If I kill the would-be murderer then I have murdered a person. If I don't then I have murdered no-one.

I wonder, would you describe yourself as a Christian? If so, then this notion should not seem so absurd to you as you pretend.

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, you would not, believe me. It springs into the eye, then.

You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario. I cannot guess whether that is just plain arrogance or intentional flame baiting.

[Aramike]

You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.

You expressely allowed a murder by ommission of action. Therefore you are morally responsible.

As for the last part - killing in defense of your family - this seems to me to be another version of the sniper and the bomber and the million people, no? Anyway it's quite simple. If I kill the would-be murderer then I have murdered a person. If I don't then I have murdered no-one.

You're confusing "murder" and "killing". I'd suggest looking the word "murder" up, as you would see that killing in defense is NOT murder, as it is neither a crime nor does it contain malicious aforethought.

So then, again, you'd be responsible for the murder by NOT killing to prevent the murder.

A tend to agree with Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." As such. inaction would be equally morally culpable when the presense of action can prevent an evil.

wonder, would you describe yourself as a Christian? If so, then this notion should not seem so absurd to you as you pretend.

I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist, depending on the day.

You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario. I cannot guess whether that is just plain arrogance or intentional flame baiting.

He presumes to know how a typical human being will respond, and I tend to agree with him.

Again, I refer to the concept of depravity. If you don't feel okay with killing a combatant who's about to slaughter a civilian family because your system of morality prevents the very prevention of evil, one must wonder why. To do so simply because of a personal, mental gratification in doing so is depravity, sorry to say.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

You presume to know how I will and will not think and act in a hypothetical scenario.

Let'S hope you never come into the situation where you will need to find out yourself.

And yes, I do claim that in certain situations and that certain experiences make people stop to prioritize their usual ways of doing and thinking. Whether you must see that as arrogant or not, I don't know, and honestly said I don't care. I've seen how people get hit by such things (not different by tendency like I got hit by themn, too), and after all we all share some basic similiarities that define us as humans, in good and bad.

Try to take the words of mine just as what they are. Don't bother with my suspected intentions or assumed characteristics.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You expressely allowed a murder by ommission of action. Therefore you are morally responsible.

How so? Where was my intent to have anyone die?

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're confusing "murder" and "killing".

More petty semantics. Swap the word "murder" for the word "kill" in my post and my point remains unchanged.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let'S hope you never come into the situation where you will need to find out yourself.

And now you presume to know my past as well.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

You seem to me to be suggesting that if I am able to prevent a murder by murdering the would-be murderer, but I don't do so, then I am responsible for the murderer's murder? In which case, I'd like to hear your logic on how I am now responsible for a murder that I did not commit, plan, or want.

I know you answered to Aramike, but however.

When you, against better knowledge, allow circumstances in which the murderer can carry out his deed, then you have made possible the later deed, and asisted the murder in finding the needec chance to carry out his deed. You are not the only one responisble, and certainly the murderer does not become innocent at your cost, but still you share responsibility in the outcome of the situation. Of course you do - how could it be different? You are an voluntary or unvoluntary, knowing or unknowing accessory, then.

You are responsible for your deeds and decisions. And you are responsible for the deeds and decisions you made not.

In some cultures, when you save somebody's life, you are thought to be responsible for this person, then, you are "co-responsible", so to speak, for what turns out from that person'S life going on. It may have been a later nobel peace prize winner. Or a later mass murderer. It was you saving his live, and by that making the later future possible to unfold.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

When you, against better knowledge, allow circumstances in which the murderer can carry out his deed, then you have made possible the later deed

No I haven't. The deed was and is possible with and without my knowledge of it.

Originally Posted by Skybird

and asisted the murder

No I haven't. Assistance would involve proactivity.

Originally Posted by Skybird

in finding the needec chance to carry out his deed. You are not the only one responisble, and certainly the murderer does not become innocent at your cost, but still you share responsibility in the outcome of the situation.

This assumes that I have some sort of obligation to protect my fellow human beings from other human beings who would harm them, which is an interesting and related matter and touches, I think, on the notion of duty raised earlier in the thread.

Assuming for now that such a duty does exist, then in that case the example of someone trying to kill my wife (who presumably is not trying to kill him) is quite an easy one and I should try to kill him if it will save my wife... however, to bring this somewhat back on track, when it comes to soldiers fighting soldiers I see no moral grounds for the individual to take one side or the other in the general case. In fact, if I've understood the various arguments put forward on this, it would be a soldier's moral duty to defect to the other side if he believed that more lives (regardless of which nation they reside in) would be saved that way. But I imagine this rarely (if ever) happens.

(I hope this can bring us back to the original topic and the true motives of soldiers)

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Assassin has a cloaking device, dagger, sapper, gun (ambassador or normal) and disquise kit.

Mercenary has a sniper rifle, Kukri knife, and an smg

Soldier has a rocket luancher, shovel and shotty.

I won't go into the scout, engie, heavy, demoman, pyro, or heavy

By the way, that made me LOL.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

No I haven't. The deed was and is possible with and without my knowledge of it.



No I haven't. Assistance would involve proactivity.

Read again:

Originally Posted by Skybird

- When you,

- against better knowledge,

- allow circumstances in which the murderer can carry out his deed,

- then you have made possible the later deed,

- and assisted the murderer in finding the needed chance to carry out his deed.

You share responsibility, therefore, but you are not responsible all alone, though, since it is not you pulling the trigger.

Simple. Very.

[Letum]

That would make me responsible for road accidents in Croatia because I
haven't devoted my life to a road safety campaign there.
I could do that and it would save lives, but I haven't, even tho I know about it.

There is a infinite number of other things I haven't done that would prevent
murders, deaths, crime etc.

You might argue that I am only responsible if I fail to act to prevent a bad
deed that happens near to me, but that seams a little arbitrary.