RichardY Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 From Pg 100 UPB Quote Soldiers, of course, wear costumes that are different from the average citizen. The average citizen is forbidden to murder; soldiers, however, are not only allowed to murder, but are morally praised for murdering. End Quote Does that include British Soldiers hung for crimes in India? By wearing a uniform and displaying a firearm isn't the person engaging in an acknowledgement for combat aka the Movie Predator? Can conscripts or feudal levies be considered soldiers? If conscripts/feudal levies are not considered soldiers is it reasonable to execute the leaders, like after the battle of Culloden 1746? From Pg 44 UPB Quote If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. The application of this theory results in a general and amoral paralysis, and thus is proven invalid. End Quote Why can't the soldier kill both? Providing they the Iraqi and Politician both express a preference to commit murder, Like Leo Van Cleef from the The Good, Bad and Ugly. In that way he would fulfil both contracts and people's stated preference to commit murder would eventually cancel each other out. Wouldn't his conduct as a soldier also depend on his interpretation of an Oath, usually to a country or a Mafia Don/Head of State? I'm not sure if all Soldiers can be considered murderers, in receipt of stolen goods perhaps. But as long as conflict is focused on pitched battles and the soldiers don't engage in collective punishment and scorched earth, they're not murderers. If push comes to shove comes to bayonets again in Europe again I'm not sure pissing off the military is a good idea especially if they maybe sympathetic to some of the old positive Europeans Ideals, if only purely from a cultural ancestry point of view.
EclecticIdealist Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 From Pg 100 UPB Quote Soldiers, of course, wear costumes that are different from the average citizen. The average citizen is forbidden to murder; soldiers, however, are not only allowed to murder, but are morally praised for murdering. End Quote Does that include British Soldiers hung for crimes in India? By wearing a uniform and displaying a firearm isn't the person engaging in an acknowledgement for combat aka the Movie Predator? Can conscripts or feudal levies be considered soldiers? If conscripts/feudal levies are not considered soldiers is it reasonable to execute the leaders, like after the battle of Culloden 1746? Yes, it includes all soldiers who take up firearms to kill others in acts of aggression. It does NOT include soldiers who take up firearms to engage in acts of self-defense or the defense of others. From Pg 44 UPB Quote If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. The application of this theory results in a general and amoral paralysis, and thus is proven invalid. End Quote Why can't the soldier kill both? Providing they the Iraqi and Politician both express a preference to commit murder, Like Leo Van Cleef from the The Good, Bad and Ugly. In that way he would fulfil both contracts and people's stated preference to commit murder would eventually cancel each other out. Wouldn't his conduct as a soldier also depend on his interpretation of an Oath, usually to a country or a Mafia Don/Head of State? The soldier would be immoral no matter who he chose to kill unless doing so was an act of justified self-defense or the defense of others. I'm not sure if all Soldiers can be considered murderers, in receipt of stolen goods perhaps. But as long as conflict is focused on pitched battles and the soldiers don't engage in collective punishment and scorched earth, they're not murderers. If push comes to shove comes to bayonets again in Europe again I'm not sure pissing off the military is a good idea especially if they may be sympathetic to some of the old positive Europeans Ideals, if only purely from a cultural ancestry point of view. Again, it comes down to whether or not they are killing in wars of aggression, or if they are killing as justified acts of self-defense in a defensive war. It has nothing to do with the type of combat or the "collective punishment" or "scorched earth" practices (although these are typically unjustified acts of aggression, they aren't always.
dsayers Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I'm not sure if all Soldiers can be considered murderers, in receipt of stolen goods perhaps. In receipt of stolen goods is sufficient for me. Immoral is immoral. You don't get to steal a candy bar because you didn't steal a car. Also, murderer or no, accepting you exist in a different, opposing moral category and voluntarily being a cog in the machine raises that machine's level of credible threat.
RichardY Posted June 3, 2016 Author Posted June 3, 2016 Again, it comes down to whether or not they are killing in wars of aggression, or if they are killing as justified acts of self-defense in a defensive war. It has nothing to do with the type of combat or the "collective punishment" or "scorched earth" practices (although these are typically unjustified acts of aggression, they aren't always. Is there a situation where collective punishment is justified?
EclecticIdealist Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Is there a situation where collective punishment is justified? Who is doing the punishment and under what circumstances? The only situation where I can think that collective punishment would be warranted is when collective action occurred which was wrong. Those who attempted to stop the wrong action, or who lacking the ability to stop or prevent it chose to opt out should be exempted from punishment from such wrong action. There is a moral duty not only to refrain from harming others, but also to prevent some from harming others to the degree that one is reasonably able without sacrificing one's own life or safety.
dsayers Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Is there a situation where collective punishment is justified? No. "Collective" doesn't exist (not actionable) and "punishment" implies people exist in different, opposing moral categories. Individuals engage in behaviors and if they have the capability of reason, are responsible for those behaviors.
RichardY Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 I think the term Joint Enterprise makes more logical and just sense than unjust Collective Punishment. However, I can think of instances of where the excuse/irrationality of "collective punishment" is used such as schools, decimation and massacres to deter partisan resistance. The term Collective I guess is less specific than the term Forest, how many trees make a forest?
Recommended Posts