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

[onelifecrisis]

@Skybird
Read again:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=184

[Aramike]

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

Your intent was to allow a murder to occur because you are unable to reconcile the ethical difference between "murder" and "killing". Therefore you have made a choice (which defines a form of proactivity) to expressely allow an evil act, and as such has assisted the completion of that act.

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

Umm, no, this is not "petty" semantics. The word "murder" and the word "killing" mean very different things, and can have a great bearing upon the ethics and morality of a given scenario.

If you don't want your points to be contested due to what you are calling "petty semantics", please just use the proper words to express your thoughts.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is actually a very well-put, thought provoking point. But it doesn't really hold water when you think about it.

In ethics there must be a measure of reasonability, for one. But, more importantly, your argument faces a paradox which renders it existentially invalid: if you're saving the lives in Croatia, you'd not be saving lives in Zimbabwe. Because that violates logical reasonability and would create an infinate feedback loop preventing any and all morality, it just doesn't work.

[Aramike]

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

I think more people would be willing to do that had you not posted a in response to the idea that duty and patriotism could be a motivation in the 14th post in this thread, which seemed to indicate that you were only concerned in discussing YOUR certain view regarding the motivation of soldiers.

[antikristuseke]

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.

Maybe things have changed but during my time in the service (1977-84) duty, honor and love of country were by far the three main motivators for soldiers joining and reenlisting in the US Army.

After all we had no GI Bill, no enlistment bonuses and our pay was minimal. So what other reason could we have enlisted for if not for patriotism?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Your intent was to allow a murder to occur because you are unable to reconcile the ethical difference between "murder" and "killing".

<snip>

Umm, no, this is not "petty" semantics. The word "murder" and the word "killing" mean very different things, and can have a great bearing upon the ethics and morality of a given scenario.

If you don't want your points to be contested due to what you are calling "petty semantics", please just use the proper words to express your thoughts.

I looked up "murder" and it means an unlawful killing, as opposed to "killing" which of course means any killing lawful or otherwise. So you're right in saying that I used the wrong word. However, since since the killing in question would, as you know, be legal in your country and in mine, it is self-evident that "killing" is what I meant, so pointing it out is petty. Besides, you've already stated that the law has nothing to do with ethics and so the distinction is moot anyway.

I already pointed out (in the post you quoted) that I'm happy to change my statement to use the word "killing" instead of "murder". I assume you did read all of my post before hitting the quote button, yes? In which case, after taking the nonsense out of your reply, we are left with:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Your intent was to allow a murder to occur. Therefore you have made a choice (which defines a form of proactivity) to expressely allow an evil act, and as such has assisted the completion of that act.

This gave me pause for thought, and made me realise that the point I made about duty has three possibilities rather than two, those being: the duty to try to prevent harm by any means, the duty to try to prevent harm by non-harmful means only, and the lack of any such duty.

But I digress.

"Your intent was to allow a murder to occur"

No... unless the murderer was asking for my permission? In which case it's safe to say that I would deny it. But this next part is very interesting:

"a choice defines a form of proactivity"

This is a head-bender for me, so I'll let you do the hard work for me:

Originally Posted by Aramike

your argument faces a paradox which renders it existentially invalid: if you're saving the lives in Croatia, you'd not be saving lives in Zimbabwe. Because that violates logical reasonability and would create an infinate feedback loop preventing any and all morality, it just doesn't work.

Heh, thanks.
Tis strange that you wouldn't discuss any of these things in PM, though.
By the way, do you realise that you just agreed with Letum? He wasn't saying he should go and spend his life trying to do as much good as possible. He was saying that SB's post implied that he should and was therefore nonsense.

[Aramike]

I looked up "murder" and it means an unlawful killing, as opposed to "killing" which of course means any killing lawful or otherwise. So you're right in saying that I used the wrong word. However, since since the killing in question would, as you know, be legal in your country and in mine, it is self-evident that "killing" is what I meant, so pointing it out is petty. Besides, you've already stated that the law has nothing to do with ethics and so the distinction is moot anyway.

I already pointed out (in the post you quoted) that I'm happy to change my statement to use the word "killing" instead of "murder". I assume you did read all of my post before hitting the quote button, yes? In which case, after taking the nonsense out of your reply, we are left with:

Actually, I completely understood what you were saying in that post. However, I felt it entertaining to point out the "petty semantics" comment, as you seem to be constantly whining about inflammatory comments.

This gave me pause for thought, and made me realise that the point I made about duty has three possibilities rather than two, those being: the duty to try to prevent harm by any means, the duty to try to prevent harm by non-harmful means only, and the lack of any such duty.

But I digress.

We're not talking about a circumstance where the murder can be prevented through non-harmful action, so I don't think the point is valid.

"Your intent was to allow a murder to occur"

No... unless the murderer was asking for my permission? In which case it's safe to say that I would deny it.

I disagree. Intent is not always premeditated by the person who's intent is in question. For instance, if someone were to throw a ball at you and you duck to miss it, you intended to duck to make the ball miss. More to the point, if you saw that person threw the ball at you and stood there while fully capable of dodging the ball, you intended upon allowing the ball to hit you.

Likewise, if you're in a situation where you're faced with a murderer threatening innocent lives, and you only possess a harmful solution to the problem but do not use it, you intended upon allowing the murder to occur.

But this next part is very interesting:

"a choice defines a form of proactivity"

This is a head-bender for me, so I'll let you do the hard work for me:

Huh? We can be cordial now? Cool.

Heh, thanks.
Tis strange that you wouldn't discuss any of these things in PM, though.

I wouldn't mind discussing these things in PM, but that wasn't at all what we were discussing. We were just nitpicking at one another over trivialities (something I can be very good at but tire of quickly).

By the way, do you realise that you just agreed with Letum? He wasn't saying he should go and spend his life trying to do as much good as possible. He was saying that SB's post implied that he should and was therefore nonsense.

Indeed, I know what he was saying. But, I don't think that is what Skybird meant, and I know it isn't what I meant as the situation Letum posed is illogical to the argument.

The problem here is that the discussion is not focused. Before one can discuss whether or not being a soldier is moral, we must agree on what defines morality. For me, morality is defined through a subjective form of deontological ethics combined with logical causality. To apply that to my example, the murderer who's actively threatening another life forfeits his moral prerogatives by doing so. While ethics will dictate to others that the solution causing the least harm is PREFERRABLE, morality will ALSO dictate that resolving the situation is imperative. Therefore whatever the solution is, its morality is dictated by whether or not the MOST PREFERRABLE solution POSSIBLE is used.

Remember when you challenged my use of the term, "certainly" (which I still stand by)? The irony is that the argument that any harm caused is immoral is a statement of a certainty as well. I disagree with that because I find that ALLOWING harm by ommission of action is immoral, and therefore such a certainty would fall into that unresolvable feedback loop yet again, and render the argument pointless.

So, the point of contention becomes this: why do you believe that, in ALL cases, causing harm in order to prevent harm is immoral?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

To be quite frank, duty and patriotism is the main motivator for the very few.

I missed this before, but I'm curious as to what you base this statement upon?

I suspect nothing, but I'm not surprised considering the source.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe things have changed but during my time in the service (1977-84) duty, honor and love of country were by far the three main motivators for soldiers joining and reenlisting in the US Army.

After all we had no GI Bill, no enlistment bonuses and our pay was minimal. So what other reason could we have enlisted for if not for patriotism?

Cant say about the american armed forces, but here in Estonia people sign up eiter because they have run out of options, are looking for adventure or really need te money.

Originally Posted by Aramike

I missed this before, but I'm curious as to what you base this statement upon?

I suspect nothing, but I'm not surprised considering the source.

My own experience in the armed forces. That being said, am currently signed up to do a tour of duty in Kosovo, but since I only made the reserve candidates list cant be sure yet if they take me or not.

[CaptainHaplo]

Legally speaking - if you know of a murder that is about to occur - and do not act in means sufficient to stop it (or at least with means sufficient to be held to have acted in good faith with a reasonable chance of success at stopping said murder) - then you are considered culpable and there are many convictions of people for what is called ACCESSORY to Murder.

If you know of one, and try to talk the person out of it - and fail - you did not do enough. If you called the cops before hand - either as soon as you learned of the plan or within time for them to stop it - your covered. If you knew yesterday but called the cops 5 minutes before the trigger was pulled and they could not get there - your culpable under the law.

The failure to act in the common good to prevent a murder is considered to be tacit approval and assistance to the murder act.

If you have no prior knowledge, then physically struggle with the murderer, are unsuccessful and then turn that person in as soon as possible, then you would be fine. If you see Joe loading his gun while drunk and talking about how he is going to go shoot his ex-wife - and you do not take action - or you take INSUFFICIENT action (within reason) - then you are morally and legally liable if he goes and kills his ex-wife.

If you cannot see where you have a moral and ethical duty to prevent a murder then there is no point in your original question - since a soldier wants to fight a war to end it, while an assassin wants to murder for money, and a merc wants to do a job to get paid.

Edit - to clarify - a soldier doesnt "want" to fight a war - but when it becomes necessary - then yes - they want to fight it - to gain its completion and return to peace. That is, at least, 98% or more of them I served with. You do have to occasional whack job - but they are easily removed from combat ops for the good of the platoon.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

there are reglious psotions that indeed see it like this. Or at least neutrally point out respnsibility, if not speaking of guilt.

Karma, for example.

Living is living in an endless context.

And we all live at the cost of people working their a$$ and lives off in the third world to make sure we get our cup of coffee in the morning, and that diamond in our golden ring.

These contexts cannot be escaped. That may be the reason why some religions speak of the need to not only stay away from doing harm, but to actively purify ourselves from the echoes of past negatives (by any form of superstitious technique or practice, for example).

Or consider another perspective. Many of you guys vote, and the leaders you voted for have allowed some for of military action or not, which may have been justified to prevent a bigger evil, or not. You helped to bring the decision makers into a psoition where they could make that decision. You share your individual ammount of responsibility.

Uncomfortable, isn't it. But who said that karma is gentle? Action, and reaction. Deciding, sending your choice into the world, causing consequences that return. That's what it is about. You can't escape it. And that is the ultimate justice. It's not about sin, it is about consequence. It is not about guilt, it is about responsibility.

[Letum]

Being responsible for an infinate ammount of evil means that I can't be more evil than I already am by ignoring a murder that happens near me.
Surely that is too much of a bullet for anyone to bite?

[Skybird]

Hm?

[Aramike]

My own experience in the armed forces. That being said, am currently signed up to do a tour of duty in Kosovo, but since I only made the reserve candidates list cant be sure yet if they take me or not.

If that is the case, your experience is markedly different than mine, where the VAST majority of people seem to care about duty and honor, and use it as a motivation to join.

However, I tend to stay away from such statements as they are anecdotal at best and cannot be proven.

Let me ask you this: why do you think US military recruitment spiked immediately after 9/11? I'm pretty sure that it's not because of additional pay, more people felt the need to pay for college, etc.