The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
My conscious is clear, I never harmed anyone in Vietnam and God is my witness!
Billy Springer
It is good to see someone coming back from a war without harming anyone, soldiers or civilians.
Humans have been engaged in numerous wars for various reasons throughout the history. Gradually, being a soldier converted from being a warrior to being an employee (with no disrespect for the sacrifices done by soldiers all over the world), and from face to face combat to gunfights from distant. Soldiers obey the commands and open fire. Sometimes they even do not see the enemy, and they are not certain whether their bullets hit the enemy or not. And in most occasions they do not have any personal grudge against their enemies. What they simply do is 'doing their job correctly'.
In that case, do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
Through the simple act of killing? No, that's their job. Though one could argue that the job of soldiering is inherently sinful, though that would make the government officials who make armies possible the sinners.
On a related note, there are sinful ways of killing by soldiers. Thermobaric bombing for example, some would also put the use of flamethrowers, napalm and shotguns in that category.
What you have mentioned in the second paragraph are the ways that are prohibited in conventional warfare by the International Humanitarian Laws. But by causing pain or not what they do is killing. So someone looses his/her life, and many suffer due to that loss. Is it not wrong? Is it not a sin? Shouldn't someone be responsible for that?
No. Society has decided it is not wrong and not a sin. That's why the military was created in the first place. The responsibility for that ethical conclusion is shared by the collective citizenry and their government. Other countries have decided not to create a military, those citizens and governmental officials have escaped that responsibility.
It is intellectually dishonest to create a military with full knowledge of what the military does, then later claim Innocence and/or ignorance when it performs exactly as planned.
AverageBozo wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 1:03 pm
I seriously wish that I had been killed by that soldier rather than having to live with the knowledge that I killed him.
They call it survivors guilt, and it is a tragedy that you still have to suffer.
I feel it is our leaders who should be held to account. There is a tried and tested formula for war --
Hermann Goering
Why of course the people don’t want to go to war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can hope for is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether in a democracy, fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Bush and Blair followed in the footsteps of Hermon Goering when they sent troops off to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Seemingly Hermann Goering has been very true. This is used not only in war, but in many other issues, just to trick people and make an opinion and a voice aamong the population to show the leaders' decisions are correct and patriotic. Leaders of corrupted countries use this to further rob their people.The developed countries who have nothing to do further within their countries use this to wage wars and exert power over other countries.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
But what are these so called 'typical killings'? Does it imply that the enemy has no right for life? How can someone get the right to end someone else's life?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
EricPH wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 9:14 am
Where does the just war fit in?
Is the Russian soldier justified when he kills a Ukrainian soldier? What would happen to the Russian soldier if he refused to follow orders?
Is it the same when a Ukrainian soldier kills a Russian soldier?
All wars are just in the subjective views of the participants. Each party says they are correct and the other parties are wrong, and ultimately there is no wrong party. Even in the Ukraine war, Russia has enough points to prove that the war is just, though Ukraine and the rest of the countries who take side with the US in the cold war denies them.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
CIN wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:20 pm
There is no special taboo against killing, nor against war. War is just another situation where one's responsibility is the same as it always is, to do what one can to work towards increasing the happiness of sentient beings and reducing their unhappiness. Sometimes threats to that overall goal arise and one has to join with others to destroy the threat, as soldiers in Ukraine are having to do at the moment. Sometimes the threat can only be destroyed by killing people, in this case Russian soldiers. Regrettable, but sometimes necessary.
Well, then from the Russian side, it is an special operation to prevent the NATO from keeping their camps and troops at their doorstep. So Russians too have taken necessary measures to defend their country, and their acts too should be justified. Then why does most of the world blame Russia for attacking Ukraine? I think they are the ones who act unjust in this situation.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 10:27 am
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
So what you're saying is that killing by, or on the orders of, an individual is wrong, but killing ordered by society/tribe/nation/etc is OK?
This is an understandably mistaken dichotomy. Societies etc. don’t give military orders. Only individuals do, such as the head of society or the top general. The order is then passed down the ranks until it reaches the soldiers.
Anyway, I just don’t see that it makes a difference who orders a soldier to kill—it’s just as wrong in any case except for self-defense.
I think what many soldiers do in the battle field is defending their own selves. When you are placed in the battle field with a weapon, either you have to let the enemy kill you or take necessary measures to protect yourself. Even the attacking party continues the attack for their survival. In that case a soldier killing his enemy should be justified in most of the occasions, excluding unnecessary killings and damagings.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Perhaps, were you referring to the infinitesimally small or the zero?
Yes, I was. After all, the real world contrast is surely between small and smaller?
That's funny. I would have said that in the THEORETICAL world, it would be between small and smaller but in the Real World it would be between the smallest and zero.
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
But what are these so called 'typical killings'? Does it imply that the enemy has no right for life? How can someone get the right to end someone else's life?
By typical killings, I meant deaths from standard military encounters. The ethical "right" to kill comes from where all ethical standards come from: namely, societal norms. When the society creates a military with full knowledge of what military engagements involve, society has given soldiers the ethical "right" to kill on it's behalf.
You are describing conflicting rights as if one must be valid and thus the other invalid. This is a logical error. Conflicting, valid rights occur routinely and involve unfortunate yet logical results.
AverageBozo wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:53 pm
Anyway, I just don’t see that it makes a difference who orders a soldier to kill—it’s just as wrong in any case except for self-defense.
If I'm defending my sister from being raped by an invading soldier when I kill him, is that wrong? It doesn't seem to be self-defence.
If I'm defending my fellow countrymen from having their liberties taken from them when I kill an invading soldier, is that wrong? Again, it doesn't seem to be self-defence.
Unless, of course, your definition of self-defence is very wide. But then it would be clearer not to call it self-defence.
I don't know about a moral definition which is applicable to self defence. But the penal code of our country deals with situations like self defence extending to ending ssomeone's life, and preventing a serious crime from happening, like a murder or a rape. In such cases legally it may be able to prove that killing a person to protect either one's own self or another person is not wrong.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 10:27 am
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
So what you're saying is that killing by, or on the orders of, an individual is wrong, but killing ordered by society/tribe/nation/etc is OK?
No, what I'm saying is that the role of soldiers is ethically approved when the army is created by the country at large. It is completely illogical to know what an army does, agree that we need one, go through all of the intricate steps to set one up, then act amazed when they are used as they were created and decry the fact that killing happened on your collective behalf.
Similarly, society has decided that the use of a hitman is a violation of ethical standards. However, CIA assasins have been ethically approved, albeit with less community discussion than the other examples.
I am not sure whether any sort of an assassin is ethically approved. Let's say that the CIA ones got that privilege, as you said. Then why so many discussions about what the KGB assassins did in the WW era and the cold war era? I think it is more a geopolitical concept than an ethical concept.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 10:27 am
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 8:34 am
So what you're saying is that killing by, or on the orders of, an individual is wrong, but killing ordered by society/tribe/nation/etc is OK?
AverageBozo wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:53 pmThis is an understandably mistaken dichotomy.Societies etc. don’t give military orders. Only individuals do,such as the head of society or the top general. The order is then passed down the ranks until it reaches the soldiers.
Anyway, I just don’t see that it makes a difference who orders a soldier to kill—it’s just as wrong in any case except for self-defense.
This is ideological misdirection, but I'm too lazy to address it here. Suffice it to say that the generals are individuals who are appointed by the tribe/etc to carry out a social role. These generals carry out the instructions of their political masters, who also occupy and carry out their own social roles of governance. It is nations who prosecute wars, not individuals. A war with one - individual - participant is not really a war, is it?
We agree, at least, that if killing is wrong, then war must be wrong. Self-defence is the only possible justification for killing, as far as I understand it.
Societies appoint political leaders and then they appoint the military leaders. So the society has some sort of a responsibility in what the politicians and the Generals do. But after being appointed, do these people ask the opinion of the society before taking decisions? They do whatever they want despite even hughes resistance from the society. The recent most example is President Putin's continuation of war despite the resistance from the Russians.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
If in a defensive war a soldier kills someone to protect the sovereignty of his nation, he is fighting for an ideal or for the betterment of his society, would you look at him the same way as if he was a murderer who kills for sport or fun? A policeman could also kill to protect an ideal( that being order and peace) or even a life. In modern society the soldier may be an occupation but with some occupations that have positions of power to do harm to other there also comes a lot responsibility to do the right thing. I think a soldier could be considered one of these occupations.
I think we should be really careful about the words that we use when we discuss this sort of matters. I believe that no occupation is given the authority to harm others, other than a government executioner. Soldiers are to protect the country. Policemen are to protect the law and order. Prison guards are to correct the prisoners. It is true that in the process of doing their job these people might harm others. But I don't think that they are given the right or authority to harm others, but only the authority to do their job by acceptable ways and means.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 4:00 am
Do soldiers sin by killing their enemies in a battle?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 1st, 2022, 10:27 am
First, I reject the aberrant Christian concept of "sin". But yes, these soldiers are just murderers, acting on orders from their 'superiors'. If murder is always wrong, then murder in war is wrong.
...
Unless murder is only wrong sometimes...?
LuckyR wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
Exactly, killing is only wrong most of the time. Typical killing by soldiers being a common example of when it is not wrong.
So what you're saying is that killing by, or on the orders of, an individual is wrong, but killing ordered by society/tribe/nation/etc is OK?
No, what I'm saying is that the role of soldiers is ethically approved when the army is created by the country at large. It is completely illogical to know what an army does, agree that we need one, go through all of the intricate steps to set one up, then act amazed when they are used as they were created and decry the fact that killing happened on your collective behalf.
Similarly, society has decided that the use of a hitman is a violation of ethical standards. However, CIA assasins have been ethically approved, albeit with less community discussion than the other examples.
I am not sure whether any sort of an assassin is ethically approved. Let's say that the CIA ones got that privilege, as you said. Then why so many discussions about what the KGB assassins did in the WW era and the cold war era? I think it is more a geopolitical concept than an ethical concept.
It is my guess that most citizens believe that the CIA has carried out assasinations (whether contracted or done in-house) on behalf of the US government. Thus regardless of whether or not there has been an explicit discussion on the acceptability of such assasinations as part of our community standard, very few can claim ignorance of the existance of the practice (assuming it is a practice).