Sven--starFury_flames-- Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 There was a recent public holiday here in Australia called ANZAC day (from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). This is supposed to be to commemorate the ANZAC troops that went off to fight (and die) in world war 1 & 2. As a kid in school I remember parades and the minute of silence and the big motto was "lest we forget"... Anyway, last week on that day I made the following Facebook post: is “soldier” just a euphemism for “murderer" ? lest we forget the meaning of war...... Obviously I knew this was going to set people off and was in fact doing it as a bit of an experiment----and anyway, I don't mind me a bit of provocation =)It did spark quite the "debate" and I decided to just let people argue amongst themselves for a day or so. I got a lot of accusations of being disrespectful, admonitions that I should "know better!", a couple of veiled threats of violence along the lines of "if some veteran came and punched you out for saying that, you'd deserve it!" (yay, instant defriend!)... Got to a 100 or so comments by the end of it and I'd say maybe 1/20 people participating were reasonable and were able to give considered responses.... Anyway, I'm just curious what do board members think, is "soldier" a euphemism for "murderer" ?.... And is it "disrespectful" to point that out on ANZAC day ?.... My response to these people was that facts/reality can't be disrespectful and that I don't mind calling a spade a spade (fun fact: in Australia we call them "shovels"!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherOtie Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I don't think it's quite the same; the fact that soldiers generally carry out the will of some higher commanding authority makes the difference. The critical question is whether the soldiers carry out that will voluntarily. But I think in general it's a bit unfair to classify all soldiers as murders. Certainly many are, especially in American society where there is no draft. Still, I think there is a very clear conceptual difference between a murderer and a soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven--starFury_flames-- Posted May 2, 2014 Author Share Posted May 2, 2014 I agree, I don't think they're synonyms... My post was a bit of a pushback against the whole glorification of war thing going on around ANZAC day here in Australia. Those poor brave honorable soldiers and all that, that we'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for their sacrifice. That's why I ended with "lest we forget the meaning of war"----isn't the reality of war death, destruction and murder? And aren't the soldiers the ones that perpetrate it...? And one of the better responses I got was:A soldier is one who fights as part of an organised armed force.A murderer is a criminal who commits homicide. "what if they threw a war and nobody came?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinJames Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The voluntary element of the decision-making process is crucial to the definition of "murderer." In the case of soldiers of the great wars, I assume (as was the case in the U.S.) many were drafted, and many more were volunteers who granted their services on the basis of false pretenses. In both cases they are themselves victims, either of force or propaganda, and cannot be held fully accountable for the charge of murder. In the case of the draft, there is little or no moral question as to whether the soldier is a murderer; a man with a gun to his head cannot be held morally accountable for obeying the one who wields the gun. In the case of volunteerism, the question of virtue becomes more ambiguous; but can still be deduced based on principles. If a man has good reason to believe that the death of an innocent child is imminent, preventable only by his own use of lethal force, the use of such force against the child's aggressor cannot be considered evil. If a man hears on the radio that there is going to be a mass slaughter of Germans, and he jumps out of his chair and signs up to join, elated by the idea of being able to kill some Aryans, he is evil. Today, in the absence of a draft, I believe most people that join the armed forces fit neatly into these two categories; sadistic sociopaths, or woefully deceived heroes. Is it disrespectful to ask the question? Of course not. Is it disrespectful to assert the ANZAC is a choice vehicle of murderers? Absolutely. But I happen to think that it's a damn good thing to disrespect people that are not deserving of respect. It's also helpful to ask the question, because it reveals who around you is not willing to consider it with curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Some soldiers are murderers, but not because they are soldiers, but because they murdered. If you're looking for a more accurate summary to push back against the narrative, tell me what you think of mine: The enforcer class (this includes police) are people who accept it when somebody tells them that morality applies differently to them. This includes doing things that would get non-enforcers imprisoned as well as accepting stolen monies for doing so. But I repeat myself. The important thing to remember is that people in the enforcer class are victims also. Victims of their families, a society that pretends that hierarchy is necessary and noble, and of course the immoral orders they are given. This doesn't excuse them, but hopefully it will quell the desire to condescend them or incite others against them. Quite frankly, we need them. By that I mean that if a good portion of the enforcer class said "NO" to the ruling class, we'd have a revolution TODAY without a drop of bloodshed. Such an act would have the added benefit of putting a real stigma on the enforcer class, encouraging others to follow suit in leaving and discourage others from entering into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWW Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Soldiers are subjected to unbelievable amounts of brainwashing and propaganda almost to the point where they are trained robots with little to no empathy for human life (in general). They are practically a direct extension of their chain of command (the state) and when given direct orders will follow them on command even if it means taking another life. There is a distinction between soldiers and murderers. Murderers kill voluntarily, whereas soldiers kill as a result of being almost completely deprived of their free will/ identity/ rationality/ etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 I have a good friend who was raised a military brat. Her ex husband and her current husband were both military. Her son dreamed of the day he turned 18 so he could enlist. Well, by the time her son was 16 or so she really started to question if this is a country/government that we should be fighting for? She tried to explain that to her son, but he took it as mom's just scared. So he enlisted and it was most everything he thought it would be through basic training. In addition to the obvious, they learned history and the constitution and it was all roses and rainbows. Then he got his orders and went to specialized training and the bloom was off the rose... Before he shipped out he told his mother that she was right. If he stood up he would have been labeled a coward and thrown in jail with a dishonorable discharge. He's simply doing his time till he can get out now. Sending a soldier to another country to initiate force is murder by proxy; the guilty parties are the politicians that send the orders down. I feel very bad for the soldiers; they're all pumped up being told they're doing the lord's work spreading Christianity - er, I mean doing the patriotic thing spreading democracy... Sorry, the similarities between religion and government confused me for a second... Anyway, when they get there they see horrendous things, do horrendous things and have to live with that for the rest of their lives. They're just the abused pawns in the system. I hope some day there will be a shift, where they realize how powerful they are and say "NO!" It has happened before, look up the Christmas truce of 1914. The soldier simply stopped fighting and began playing football (soccer) in the middle of the battlefield. It ended when commanders on both sides ordered the return to hostilities under the threat of court martial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 There was a recent public holiday here in Australia called ANZAC day (from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). This is supposed to be to commemorate the ANZAC troops that went off to fight (and die) in world war 1 & 2. As a kid in school I remember parades and the minute of silence and the big motto was "lest we forget"... Anyway, last week on that day I made the following Facebook post: is “soldier” just a euphemism for “murderer" ? lest we forget the meaning of war...... Obviously I knew this was going to set people off and was in fact doing it as a bit of an experiment----and anyway, I don't mind me a bit of provocation =)It did spark quite the "debate" and I decided to just let people argue amongst themselves for a day or so. I got a lot of accusations of being disrespectful, admonitions that I should "know better!", a couple of veiled threats of violence along the lines of "if some veteran came and punched you out for saying that, you'd deserve it!" (yay, instant defriend!)... Got to a 100 or so comments by the end of it and I'd say maybe 1/20 people participating were reasonable and were able to give considered responses.... Anyway, I'm just curious what do board members think, is "soldier" a euphemism for "murderer" ?.... And is it "disrespectful" to point that out on ANZAC day ?.... My response to these people was that facts/reality can't be disrespectful and that I don't mind calling a spade a spade (fun fact: in Australia we call them "shovels"!) wait, you mean you call shovels shovels? or you call something else shovels? Or um... do the british not call them shovels? Anyhow... Stef has made the point that the world wars were dumb ideas for America to enter, but damn it's a complete waste for Australia and NZ to fight in Europe. My answer to your question is that sounds wonderful, I think I'll quote you when veteran's day comes around in the US... or should I say "retired killers day". I guess I could also do that on memorial day AKA killed killers day... I need people to defriend me on teh facebooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstantinos_T Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Well... let's see; Any soldier and member of armed forces (I have been in the navy of my native country) has the legal obligation to follow orders, some of which include the initiation of force (either in a preventive manner or in a deadly manner). This is by definition coersion. One cannot claim that under coersion they have choice of action, in order to be able to be deemed a moral agent. A murderer, understands that he/she has the choice to NOT commit a murderous act, yet they do murder someone else. A murderer is not under coercion, he does have the ability to be a moral agent yet he avoids that possibility of choice Therefore a soldier is not a murder. On the other hand he/she can become a murderer, if they use deadly action or preventive measures that result in death, while not under orders or inspite of instruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Murder is a technical judicial term.So if you want to say all soldiers are murderers the onus is on you to show that all soldiers meet the legal requirements to be called murderers. In most countries, murder includes premeditation against their victim(s) in the definition. Most soldiers don't know their 'victims,' often are not even aware of the fact that they killed a person at all. A strong case may be made that many soldiers actually use force (and kill) in self-defense, which may constitute homicide but not murder. Really though, calling soldiers murderers is just another ad hominem. It's an emotion-based slur. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers who are murderers, but they are so not because they are soldiers. They are murderers because what they did meets the legal standard. Perhaps you meant to say "all soldiers are killers," and that would be a lot closer to the mark. Most soldiers don't kill during their time in the service but at least they all knowingly and willingly take the risk of being put in circumstances where they may be called upon to call another human being. It would be fair to say that killing 'the enemy' (whoever our masters say it is this week) is the prime purpose of a soldier. But killing does not equal murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 So if you want to say all soldiers are murderers the onus is on you to show that all soldiers meet the legal requirements to be called murderers. "legal requirements" have no place in a normative discussion. In most countries, murder includes premeditation against their victim(s) in the definition. Most soldiers don't know their 'victims,' often are not even aware of the fact that they killed a person at all. So if you don't know the person, or you think that what you ran over was just a big dog, you're off the hook? A strong case may be made that many soldiers actually use force (and kill) in self-defense By all means make the case. The premise is flawed the moment it uses the word "self." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 "legal requirements" have no place in a normative discussion. They do if you're talking about legal terms. Like murder. So if you don't know the person, or you think that what you ran over was just a big dog, you're off the hook? What hook? If someone calls you a murderer, it is up to that person to prove the accusation. Even if (for example) no one contends the fact that there was a killing. By all means make the case. The premise is flawed the moment it uses the word "self." Bald assertion. But here's an example: I am standing guard in a watchtower at the border. Suddenly shots are fired, bullets impact my cabin, I see flashes and hear yelling, directing an attack. After more bullets strike, I observe where the fire is coming and return it, killing my attacker. Am I now a murderer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Bald assertion. But here's an example: I am standing guard in a watchtower at the border. What's a border? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 They do if you're talking about legal terms. Like murder. You haven't made the case for murder being a legal term. Murder is the initiation of the use of force that results in the ending of a human life. Your scenario is a straw man. Soldiers who trespass cannot be described as engaging in self-defense. Concocting a very elaborate "what if" to make the description fit adds nothing to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts