[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:<<< I killed combatants because they were trying to kill me or mine. >>>[/quote]First, I appreciate your forthrightness. More importantly I thank you for doing what I have never had to do so that I can sit here in relative safety and type this on this webpage. I detect an unavoidable hijack here, but did you believe you were on the side of good in the war you were fighting? Or were you simply following orders?
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
It’s pretty much like this thread. Moral justifications to make you feel better.
Maybe I am amoral, but it was (and this thread is) complete bullshit.
[/quote]
Why is us talking about morals, good v. evil, or just generally mentally masturbating about the suject of one man taking the life of another bullshit?
No disrespect, I thank you for your service. But I don’t believe anyone was judging anyone, but rather just pontificating, maybe ignorantly, but just the same.
I just don’t get how the thread is complete bullshit. Because you have been put in the situation, so that means you can stifle conversation about morals or good v. evil? Because, at least to me, this thread is more about people, their emotions, morals and social norms than it was about the act of killing.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:<<< I killed combatants because they were trying to kill me or mine. >>>[/quote]First, I appreciate your forthrightness. More importantly I thank you for doing what I have never had to do so that I can sit here in relative safety and type this on this webpage. I detect an unavoidable hijack here, but did you believe you were on the side of good in the war you were fighting? Or were you simply following orders?
[/quote]
The question misses the point: no thought like that remotely crosses your mind. You are part of the food chain. Eat or be eaten.
Regarding the wars (Iran and Afganistan), the response is that neither Afganistan or Iraq will act as safe harbors for terrorists who will come to the USA for some time, which is a good thing and I am happy to have helped.
Would I, as CIC persued both wars differently?
Yes, I would have taken the war directly to Iran (airstrikes and very limited in-and-out ground incursions), who is really who we were fighting in both Iran and Afganistan. We made the mistake of fighting the enemy’s proxies in both Korea and Vietnam and should have known not to repeat that mistake by fighting Iran’s proxies and leaving Iran alone.
You can’t bomb a people already in the stone age back to the stone age.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
It’s pretty much like this thread. Moral justifications to make you feel better.
Maybe I am amoral, but it was (and this thread is) complete bullshit.
[/quote]
Why is us talking about morals, good v. evil, or just generally mentally masturbating about the suject of one man taking the life of another bullshit?
No disrespect, I thank you for your service. But I don’t believe anyone was judging anyone, but rather just pontificating, maybe ignorantly, but just the same.
I just don’t get how the thread is complete bullshit. Because you have been put in the situation, so that means you can stifle conversation about morals or good v. evil? Because, at least to me, this thread is more about people, their emotions, morals and social norms than it was about the act of killing.
[/quote]
The reason it is bullshit is no thoughts like these go through your mind when actually performing the acts everyone is talking about.
I went through all the classes on what was a justified kill, had it lectured to me by JAG officers, and read and re-read the ROE, and when it came to actual fighting, it was all about just doing whatever it took.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
The reason it is bullshit is no thoughts like these go through your mind when actually performing the acts everyone is talking about.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
I suppose if it did, you wouldn’t be here to tell me that.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Do you think there is any principles in the matter? It would seem there would need to be principles or it would be somewhat arbitrary if there was exceptions.[/quote]
What do you mean principles? What principles do you specifically see that without exceptions would be arbitrary?[/quote]
I don’t think you quite understood me, that is my fault. I heartily apologize.
Let me start over again. Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. For there to be exceptions without it being arbitrary (or ad hoc) it would seem there would need to be a secondary principle. Or, maybe an explanation of the first principle to enlighten us to the fact that those actions that seem like exceptions are actually following of the first principle.[/quote]
I think I’m more confused than I was before. I’m not even sure what to ask.
[/quote]
Okay.
Primordial Principle: Thou shalt not kill an innocent human being.
Secondary Principle: A principle that allows you to seemingly violate Primordial Principle.
What is the secondary principle, or do we need a better understanding of the primordial principle and there is no need for a secondary principle.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Do you think there is any principles in the matter? It would seem there would need to be principles or it would be somewhat arbitrary if there was exceptions.[/quote]
What do you mean principles? What principles do you specifically see that without exceptions would be arbitrary?[/quote]
I don’t think you quite understood me, that is my fault. I heartily apologize.
Let me start over again. Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. For there to be exceptions without it being arbitrary (or ad hoc) it would seem there would need to be a secondary principle. Or, maybe an explanation of the first principle to enlighten us to the fact that those actions that seem like exceptions are actually following of the first principle.[/quote]
I think I’m more confused than I was before. I’m not even sure what to ask.
[/quote]
Okay.
Primordial Principle: Thou shalt not kill an innocent human being.
Secondary Principle: A principle that allows you to seemingly violate Primordial Principle.
What is the secondary principle, or do we need a better understanding of the primordial principle and there is no need for a secondary principle. [/quote]
The way I see it, there is only the primordial principle and it is never good to kill.
Basically, one ought never kill. But it can be the right thing out of necessity to prevent a worse evil. If you killed someone to protect an innocent, I would say an evil was committed, but a much greater evil was prevented so it was right.
Does that answer your question?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. [/quote]
It doesn’t say “kill,” it says “murder.” “Thou shalt not murder.”
There is a large gulf between killing and murdering.[/quote]
Yes, of course. I should have made that more clear. I was giving an example of a first principle that they were trying to put forward but was unarticulated. As Jewbacca pointed out, “Thou shalt not murder” is the principle in which you want.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. [/quote]
It doesn’t say “kill,” it says “murder.” “Thou shalt not murder.”
There is a large gulf between killing and murdering.[/quote]
You beat me to it. This is a very important point I often times have to explain to my Catholic friends as well as my atheist friends who seem surprised that as a believer in God I do agree with the death penalty.[/quote]
Agreeing or disagreeing has nothing to do with understanding that the the commandment is thou shalt not murder. Most Catholics in America are pro-death penalty, even though most bishops in the 1st world are against the death penalty in modern civilization.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]
I don’t want to derail this into a political discussion, but I remember when that preacher interviewed both McCain and Obama.
He asked each to define “sin.” Obama stated (paraphrase) “sin is going against MY moral beliefs.”
I was pretty stunned at the ego involved at every level of that statement.[/quote]
You want to see ego?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Do you think there is any principles in the matter? It would seem there would need to be principles or it would be somewhat arbitrary if there was exceptions.[/quote]
What do you mean principles? What principles do you specifically see that without exceptions would be arbitrary?[/quote]
I don’t think you quite understood me, that is my fault. I heartily apologize.
Let me start over again. Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. For there to be exceptions without it being arbitrary (or ad hoc) it would seem there would need to be a secondary principle. Or, maybe an explanation of the first principle to enlighten us to the fact that those actions that seem like exceptions are actually following of the first principle.[/quote]
I think I’m more confused than I was before. I’m not even sure what to ask.
[/quote]
Okay.
Primordial Principle: Thou shalt not kill an innocent human being.
Secondary Principle: A principle that allows you to seemingly violate Primordial Principle.
What is the secondary principle, or do we need a better understanding of the primordial principle and there is no need for a secondary principle. [/quote]
The way I see it, there is only the primordial principle and it is never good to kill.
Basically, one ought never kill. But it can be the right thing out of necessity to prevent a worse evil. If you killed someone to protect an innocent, I would say an evil was committed, but a much greater evil was prevented so it was right.
Does that answer your question?[/quote]
So you’re saying the ends justify the means?
Yes.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well…you are after all in High School so that this comes as no surprise.[/quote]
Not any more! I’ve graduated and I’m moving on to University. =)[/quote]
Such a big boy! (Reaches down and ruffles hair)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well…you are after all in High School so that this comes as no surprise.[/quote]
Not any more! I’ve graduated and I’m moving on to University. =)[/quote]
Such a big boy! (Reaches down and ruffles hair)[/quote]
You say “reach down”, but a man of your stature couldn’t reach me with a ladder.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]
I don’t want to derail this into a political discussion, but I remember when that preacher interviewed both McCain and Obama.
He asked each to define “sin.” Obama stated (paraphrase) “sin is going against MY moral beliefs.”
I was pretty stunned at the ego involved at every level of that statement.[/quote]
You want to see ego?[/quote]
… Is that real? How can anybody “like” Obama when he’s putting out things like this?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]
I don’t want to derail this into a political discussion, but I remember when that preacher interviewed both McCain and Obama.
He asked each to define “sin.” Obama stated (paraphrase) “sin is going against MY moral beliefs.”
I was pretty stunned at the ego involved at every level of that statement.[/quote]
You want to see ego?[/quote]
… Is that real? How can anybody “like” Obama when he’s putting out things like this?[/quote]
I thought it was intended as tongue in cheek.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Do you think there is any principles in the matter? It would seem there would need to be principles or it would be somewhat arbitrary if there was exceptions.[/quote]
What do you mean principles? What principles do you specifically see that without exceptions would be arbitrary?[/quote]
I don’t think you quite understood me, that is my fault. I heartily apologize.
Let me start over again. Thou shalt not kill is a principle, a first principle to be exact. For there to be exceptions without it being arbitrary (or ad hoc) it would seem there would need to be a secondary principle. Or, maybe an explanation of the first principle to enlighten us to the fact that those actions that seem like exceptions are actually following of the first principle.[/quote]
I think I’m more confused than I was before. I’m not even sure what to ask.
[/quote]
Okay.
Primordial Principle: Thou shalt not kill an innocent human being.
Secondary Principle: A principle that allows you to seemingly violate Primordial Principle.
What is the secondary principle, or do we need a better understanding of the primordial principle and there is no need for a secondary principle. [/quote]
To me, it all hinges simply on the phrasing of your first principle…that being, the use of the word “innocent”. If the human being is guilty of a crime deserving death, then his death didn’t violate that principle. Otherwise, it’s wrong. Or so it would go theoretically.
As ruffian has pointed out, IRL it doesn’t exactly play out like that generally…
Killing other people is horrible.
I think if you can justify killing in revenge, or you claim it’s some sort of legal justice, then I think the person, “pushing the button” should be the one who was wronged in death penalty like cases. Ask them after they are done if they feel justice, or if they feel really ugly to their core and confused because they don’t feel what was just done was, “right.” Not saying I wouldn’t or don’t want revenge for ones I lost, but at least I’m not going to pretend it’s justice.
Not to say that killing in self defense, or in defense of your loved ones is wrong. At least I believe we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. I think it would be wrong to not defend them.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Yes.[/quote]
Why do you believe that?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
That’s actually what I’m asking. If you’re not appealing to God, then what else is there to base the definition of “evil” on?[/quote]
I don’t want to derail this into a political discussion, but I remember when that preacher interviewed both McCain and Obama.
He asked each to define “sin.” Obama stated (paraphrase) “sin is going against MY moral beliefs.”
I was pretty stunned at the ego involved at every level of that statement.[/quote]
You want to see ego?[/quote]
… Is that real? How can anybody “like” Obama when he’s putting out things like this?[/quote]
I thought it was intended as tongue in cheek.[/quote]
No. http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry
This is real. Give your God King his burnt incense!