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

[onelifecrisis]

@Aramike?

Now who's confusing/avoiding the issue?

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it.

Response?

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.

Still think it's as simple as 2+2=4?

[Aramike]

I've read back through our posts and I'm not sure what you think I bypassed. Do you mean this?

I meant, SPECIFICALLY, the point about how not all killing is evil.

If so, I bypassed it because it is itself a bypass; it's an attempt to drag my point into semantics. Simply replace the word "crimes" in my statement with "acts" okay? Then we can move on from semantics. As far as I'm concerned, it makes the same point either way.

Your original question is semantics to begin with. The difference between a mercenary and a soldier can easily be found in the dictionary, of all places. But that is outside the scope of our particular discussion.

You're drawing parallels between "2+2=4" and "not all killing is evil"?

I'm drawing a parallel between two factual statements.

Hmm, again you're making things personal. Given your tendency to do this, I'm not sure I'm the one without a "thick enough skin" here.

None of that was personal, and the fact that you take it as such demonstrates a thin skin, as it were.

Making an observation and a deduction based upon someone's communications is not denigrating the discussion into some kind of personal attack. If you attempt to muddle the argument and are called on it, that's not personal - that's merely a statement of observation.

Again personal, although this time at least you're going somewhere beyond mere insults so allow me to respond to that bit first. It's interesting (to me) that you think I have a prerendered conclusion. I assure you, I don't.

Despite your repeated, baseless claims, I have not attempted to insult you once. Perhaps you may take your arguments being called disingenous as an insult, but surely that holds no more credibility than how insulting your assertion that soldiers are evil must be.

Hence, the comment regarding thin skin.

Furthermore, you absolutely do have a prerendered conclusion, despite your protests to the contrary. This is evidenced by your outright dismissal of any arguments pertaining to "duty" and "honor" as a motivation. Someone truly seeking an unbiased answer would strive to take into account all possible motivations.

Furthermore, the thing I find most concerning about your posts is that you do.

Unlike you, I am not seeking a dilineation to something I already clearly understand. As such, I believe that I have an educated, prerendered conclusion.

To assume that others haven't solved a problem that we ourselves are currently mulling is the height of arrogance.

So, unlike you, I'll admit that I have a prerendered conclusion. Furthermore, I contend that I can support said conclusions with facts and reasoning. Finally, I do not believe that having come to a conclusion is at all something to be frowned upon.

You are certain about these things! Which I find remarkable!

You should read more closely and attempt to understand the contents of an argument prior to rushing to formulate a response (as is evidenced by the fact that, a mere minutes after I wrote the previous post, I edited something out which still manages to appear in your rebuttal).

I am certain about what I specifically say I am certain about. I am certain that, due to the subjective nature of "evil", not all killing is evil. To prove that statement wrong, you would have to demonstrate that evil is absolute. Furthermore, you would ALSO have to demonstrate that ALL acts of killing are evil acts.

Considering that I can easily cite many, many instances where *I* don't find killing to be evil (as evil is subjective), my statement is certain.

Read back to your original rebuttal of my original post. Rather than making a snide and ridiculous (and insulting) comment about how my saying something is certain doesn't make it certain, why don't you tell me how I'm wrong?

You can't. No one can, due to the subjective nature of "evil". That is why I'm certain.

Furthermore, attempt to refrain from applying my one conditional statement of certainty to the rest of my arguments, despite myself not doing so.

Firstly, I'm not certain that killing is ever a good thing, and your assertion that killing to save lives is "good" is not an argument, it's just a statement that you blindly accept as true.

This is silly rhetoric. Do you know what an argument is (hint, hint: it's a course of reasoning, in this context)?

Secondly, how do you justify the statement that I "blindly" believe it to be true, considering that I have posted no parameters regarding what leads me to have that belief?

Thirdy, one can say that ANY argument is "just a statement" that someone accepts is true. That does nothing to qualify or disqualify the argument itself.

Yes, the intent matters, but you have not shown that the intent to save a million lives is justification for taking one.

No, I haven't shown to YOUR SATISFACTION that it is justified. However, your satisfaction is irrelevent to the real world. To the satisfaction of the vast majority of people (want to do a poll?), the killing of one person to save the million lives that SAID PERSON HIMSELF THREATENS is justifiable.

By your own admission you see it as an equivalent to "2+2=4", something that is simply true "by definition". I do not.

If you're going to dispute my claim, it helps to actually show why the claim is wrong. So far, we're in an endless cycle of you criticizing arguments while positing none of your own.

Secondly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that killing is sometimes a good thing, there are still moral problems with being a soldier who kills. For a start, the soldier may (and probably will) be required to do killing that is immoral in addition to any "moral killing" that he is required to do, and - perhaps more importantly - he does not know which he will be doing when he agrees to do it.

First of all, please cite reasons you believe a soldier will have to "probably" kill in the first place. The vast majority of soldiers never see combat and, as such, your argument is proven wrong. Secondly, as morality is subjective, prior to your making claims as to soldiers immorally killing, morality itself must be defined.

Either way he does not make the decision.

He makes an informed decision to relegate his moral authority to someone else, who has been decided to be better qualified to see the larger picture, as it were. There is no guarantee that the senior will be always morally correct, but that is a human flaw - not just a soldier's.

Furthermore, I would assert that if a soldier is absolved of the blame of an immoral murder by the fact that he is under orders then by the same token he is stripped of the credit for any "moral killings" that he also performs under orders.

What is your reasoning for this, or is it just a "statement that you blindly accept to be true"?

More personal attacks? Easy, tiger.

It is funny how this is a response to something I edited out moments after posting. It serves to demonstrate that you were far more eager to respond than to actually read and comprehend an alternative point. This also shows that your position has been predetermined.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

@Aramike?

Now who's confusing/avoiding the issue?



Response?



Still think it's as simple as 2+2=4?

First, what does this have to do with me?

Second, I never said the issue was as simple as 2+2=4. That's something you no doubt derived from being too busy responding to actually read and comprehend was I was saying.

The 2+2=4 was CLEARLY in reference to a single statement I made, and the nature of "certainty". I cannot fathom a good reason why you'd continually take it out of its so clearly obvious context, so I won't bother a guess.

Also, I'd suggest that you slow down a bit, take a deep breath, and try to figure out what is being written, but it's probably hopeless to do so as you're likely already responding the very suggestion.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

It takes many hours to remove the built in reluctance to take human life, unless you are an abortion doctor sworn to uphold the hypocratic oath.
Part of basic training is about breaking down the natural instinct which is built into everyone reguarding killing other human beings.

Killing has been around a lot longer than basic training. Personally I do not believe that there is a GENERALIZED natural instinct to not take a human life - instincts are proactive, and not taking a life is the default position). I believe that there IS a natural instinct to kill if threatened severly enough, however (this is supported by modern psychology).

Having been through basic training myself, I believe that there is very little in the way of breaking down any humanistic instincts. At least, not any more than there was on my highschool football team...

[onelifecrisis]

Ugh...

I see you like to split one discussion into as many smaller discussions as possible. If I avoid answering every single one of your statements you accuse me of avoiding issues, but if I were to answer every single point you make then those points would get split into more points and more points and we'd end up debating seventy things instead of one. It would be one big mess of a discussion, and given your style of debate I suspect you're very familiar with the sort of mess I'm talking about.

Are you interested in this topic, or just looking for a sparring partner? I would be quite happy to reply to most of your ever-growing list of sub-points and sub-topics in PM, and in this thread reply only to the few sentences in your post that I consider to be relevant to the discussion, but would that suit you or not?

Originally Posted by Aramike

Killing has been around a lot longer than basic training. Personally I do not believe that there is a GENERALIZED natural instinct to not take a human life - instincts are proactive, and not taking a life is the default position). I believe that there IS a natural instinct to kill if threatened severly enough, however (this is supported by modern psychology).

Having been through basic training myself, I believe that there is very little in the way of breaking down any humanistic instincts. At least, not any more than there was on my highschool football team...

Some form of basic training has always been around both ancient and modern. The Spartans started vey young. The reason was to remove the base instinct not to take human life. Airforce basic isn't the same as basic for up close killers. You can always tell who the AF bus drivers are.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Ugh...

I see you like to split one discussion into as many smaller discussions as possible. If I avoid answering every single one of your statements you accuse me of avoiding issues, but if I were to answer every single point you make then those points would get split into more points and more points and we'd end up debating seventy things instead of one. It would be one big mess of a discussion, and given your style of debate I suspect you're very familiar with the sort of mess I'm talking about.

Are you interested in this topic, or just looking for a sparring partner? I would be quite happy to reply to most of your ever-growing list of sub-points and sub-topics in PM, and in this thread reply only to the few sentences in your post that I consider to be relevant to the discussion, but would that suit you or not?

Heh, this seems to be a cop-out.

Frankly, I'd prefer you respond to the FACT that you used my statement of certainty to mean that everything I said was qualified similarly. This shows that, no, I don't split things into sub-topics. Rather, it is you who are doing so. My points remain within their original contexts.

Honestly, here's where the problem grew. I stated that certainly not all killing can be considered evil. You snidely replied that just because I say something is certain, that doesn't make it so. I come back with that the statement is certain and THAT is what makes it certain, and I further demonstrate why.

And yet, you keep trying to use that statement against my arguments despite the fact that it makes no sense to do so, and is grossly out of context...

What's happened here is that I made an argument, you've spent ten thousand words in a vain attempt to tell me I'm wrong, and have not once displayed parameters to support that. Further, you've attempted to dodge the fact that you have a prerendered conclusion regarding this topic, despite your ABSOLUTE dismissal of valid arguments. You've posited that killing, and being a soldier is "evil" and "immoral" dodging the fact that, in order to do so, "evil" and "morality" must be clearly defined.

You've even gone so far as to explain that saving a million lives might be "evil" because one of those lives may, in the future, result in billions dead. By that bizarre claim, childbirth is evil. Education is evil. Etc. In this track, "evil" itself is so muddled that the point becomes moot, and we'd be talking about nothing.

I understand your arguments and your question. However, I believe you are being dishonest in your search for answers, as you've out-of-hand dismissed those that would challenge your notions. Further, I believe that you are misguided, and, quite frankly, outright DEPRAVED to believe that killing someone with their hand on the button of a nuclear weapon poised to kill millions is evil. It is absolutely sickening to me how one's emotional self-satisfaction is more important than millions of human lives.

My morality is clear. Yours is not so clear, and you are attempting to frame your arguments within your personal morality, making them neither right or wrong - in theory.

However, in the real world, semantical theory is of little use, thank heavens.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Some form of basic training has always been around both ancient and modern. The Spartans started vey young. The reason was to remove the base instinct not to take human life. Airforce basic isn't the same as basic for up close killers. You can always tell who the AF bus drivers are.

I suppose that it true, and I have erred in overlooking your point.

However, the remainder of my points regarding human nature still stand.

Originally Posted by Aramike

I suppose that it true, and I have erred in overlooking your point.

However, the remainder of my points regarding human nature still stand.

I for one am pleased that taking life is not the default position. Please do not take that to mean that taking a life to save multiple lives, or in the case of rape, arson etc. is beyond my comprehension, nor the that the 'castle doctrine' is out of bounds.

My previous statements were only contributed to place emphasis and more emphasis on what many do not consider when using deadly physical force.

[onelifecrisis]

Hookay, so far I'm disingenous, glib, arrogant, dishonest, thin skinned, depraved, snide... shall I go on? But no, you're not getting personal!

I'm not above petty fights and I'll bite sooner or later if this goes on. Hell, this very post is here (rather than in PM) more to serve my ego than anything else. This could have been PM'd, but then I'd lose face, right? I know you know what I'm saying. My offer to take this to PM is not a cop-out, it's an attempt to save this thread from our egos without losing out on your opinions on the topic which I actually do want to hear, as opposed to your opinions on me which I don't.

It's 22 hours since I slept (I've been at the damn Red Bull again, but it's wearing off) but I'll PM you tomorrow unless you say not to.

G'night.

[Aramike]

Hookay, so far I'm disingenous, glib, arrogant, dishonest, thin skinned, depraved, snide... shall I go on? But no, you're not getting personal!

When you put it like that...

Except, considering I'm the one that said those things, and DID NOT put it like that, it changes things. "Context" can be very important.

Besides, where the hell do you get off? You can claim that soldiers are evil with impunity, but as soon as someone claims that a person is depraved who believes that it is wrong to kill someone who's going to kill millions of people, now THEY are making it personal?

HUH?

I'm not above petty fights and I'll bite sooner or later if this goes on. Hell, this very post is here (rather than in PM) more to serve my ego than anything else. This could have been PM'd, but then I'd lose face, right? I know you know what I'm saying. My offer to take this to PM is not a cop-out, it's an attempt to save this thread from our egos without losing out on your opinions on the topic which I actually do want to hear, as opposed to your opinions on me which I don't.

Stop whining about "opinions on me".

Just so you know, I served. As have many people here. You're opinion that soldiers are evil are opinions on US. If you can't handle it the other way, then you should have kept quiet.

It's 22 hours since I slept (I've been at the damn Red Bull again, but it's wearing off) but I'll PM you tomorrow unless you say not to.

Go nuts, but understand - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

G'night.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Just rambling but then again from the start I think it's healthy to make the difference between a soldier within the homeland borders and away.

I could go on and on and on with sadly funny (home) or downright ugly (abroad) personnal stories and friend's stories from "duty" but I think it can be summed by a couple numbers. In the french army there's at most 0.7 applicant for 1 job. The job pays 200 euros more than any other "non qualified" job, and you're sure to get it. When I left the army I had to post over 50 resumés to finally get a lousy job paying 900€ compared to the 1150 + benefits I was making in the army. Some people on this forum will want to use that to take a shot at the french as usual but before doing so take a look at the stats for your own army

So with that mind I'm never surprised when I hear in the news that this guy was charged with rape, this one was seen on a blog photo wearing nazi garment, this one accidentally discharged his firearm on a comrade etc etc.

I think it's safe to say that if an army has to resort to advertising and roaming streets to find recruits, then you can be sure things are going to be ugly especially when these people are deployed abroad. There is a huge difference between the actual stuff and the romantic vision of strong men placing duty above and giving up their life to "serve and protect".

Basically I agree with OLC's statement that soldiers are a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.

Well at least it isn't forced conscription.

[Dowly]

Wait... how the hell did you guys turn a topic like this to a debate and personal attacks???

Soldier = On duty to defend/attack for one's country. Either volunteer or "forced" to (depends of the country).
Mercenary = Volunteer, either works for the money or just likes what he/she does.
Assassin = This would have tons of meanings. You kill someone publicly known or in high status = you are called an assassin. But I think you are looking for a more traditional explanation? Assassin as in hitman (no, not the game)? Well, a person who kills ppl for money and/or he/she is ordered to.

I'm sorry if I've missed something, but wouldnt that kinda be it? How in-depth story you want about the differences?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think that the whole topic is more about the moral difference between the three at this point, Dowly.

Personally, I think they're making the whole thing much more complicated than it really is, but for the record;

Soldier= state combatant
Mercenary= professional private combatant
Assassin= state or private professional murderer

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

ASSASSIN: An individual - perhaps a professional - perhaps not; who, for their own personal political gains or the political gains of a group or nation murders a public figure such as a president, king, ambassador, etc. an assassin is not necessarily always facing monetary gain in performing this task.

Some others feed off the suffering and pain when the target is being removed.