tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post4640777319877609782..comments2024-01-30T03:39:16.491-05:00Comments on Thoughts of a Soldier-Ethicist: Moral justification for killing in warPete Kilnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-15429610162921258752015-12-06T19:32:19.705-05:002015-12-06T19:32:19.705-05:00Sorry, I got a little hot headed. My previous post...Sorry, I got a little hot headed. My previous post was directed at Greg Cryns' post.Jonathan hoesleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-79841211683592448902015-12-06T19:21:52.743-05:002015-12-06T19:21:52.743-05:00Who the fuck are you? Have ever served? Have you e...Who the fuck are you? Have ever served? Have you ever had to make a life or death decision in an instant? One that will stick with you forever? Have you ever pulled the trigger and taken a life to save another? It doesn't sound like you have! It doesn't sound like you have done shit to defend our country or anyone else. You just sit there and preach you bullshit, while we make it safe for you to put your bullshit spilling fat head to sleep at night.Jonathan hoesleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-59714399661293730672015-06-18T17:54:02.751-04:002015-06-18T17:54:02.751-04:00Sometimes the bottom line is------Nuke em all!
Sometimes the bottom line is------Nuke em all!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-19411427531647600672014-08-12T05:12:57.544-04:002014-08-12T05:12:57.544-04:00Greetings everyone.
Let me first start off with t...Greetings everyone.<br /><br />Let me first start off with the fact that I appreciate the diversity of opinions in these responses, and respect the careful thought that obviously went into many of them.<br /><br />What I find troubling however is the missing piece... the victims or would-be victims of non-war that no one seems to have remembered (although perhaps I missed it in a speed read)...<br /><br />In summary: my theory is that moral killing in war and in the past two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) can be at least morally justified by the following concept (flowing from Pete's post):<br /><br />It is morally praiseworthy, and perhaps morally obligatory, to kill evil men in defense of the innocent... even of those innocents are citizens of another country. <br /><br />The moral justification for defense of another person is extended to the helpless and downtrodden of another country in the face of grave human rights violations, up to and including summary execution at the hands of a tyrant or tyrants.<br /><br />I'm speaking specifically of the Taliban's human rights violations and execution of Coalition-collaborators (civilians), Saddam Husein's gassing of entire Kurdish villages and torturing of political dissidents, as well as the summary beheading and mass shootings of Christians and religious minorities at the hands of ISIS happening as we speak.<br /><br />Our system, and the system endorsed by the U.N, is based on the assumption that all human beings are entitled to basic human rights that are not abrogated by national law nor border lines on a map. These rights are universal and eternal, at least in theory. This includes Pete's well-articulated right not to be killed by another human being, nor to be arbitrarily enslaved. (The Bubble Theory of Rights).<br /><br />To transcend theory to fact, sometimes requires people that are willing to take the fight to the enemy, and kill. The ugly truth of humanity is that half of the time, some of our species violate this right of others because they stand to profit from it, and believe in their black hearts that the virtuous are too restrained and tepid to offer enough resistance to stop them.<br /><br />Consider for a minute our own lives as civilians (if you are one) in America. When someone breaks into my house and tries to murder me, rape my wife, or slaughter our children, we possess two protections: the right to kill in our own defense, and the right to call upon other noble killers to do so on our behalf. The same applies to our citizens if they are attacked by an international enemy (national self defense).<br /><br />The reason committing just aggression against another country in war, killing enemy combatants in war, can at least sometimes be considered morally praiseworthy or obligatory comes from the concept that some people deserve the right not to be killed... but have no way to enforce it themselves without our intervention.<br /><br />I posit to you that every woman in Afghanistan that has been beaten for having a loose strand of hair fall from her burkha, every Iraqi Christian who has been beheaded for praying to his god, and every child of a non-Baathist father that watches his parent be carried off to a secret prison never to be seen again... ALL of these human beings deserve the same right to self-defense (by their own hands or by the hands of a professional warrior)... but don't have it anyway.<br /><br />There is NO 911 for them to call. There is no beat cop to radio for backup. There is no DEVGRU to send on a rescue mission.<br /><br />There is only mercy at the hands of men who have none to give. The only hope they have is that their deaths will be clean and with perhaps a sliver of dignity.<br /><br />They deserve more, just like we do.<br /><br />That is not the only moral justification for just aggression in war (invasion or limited direct action), but it's certainly enough on its own to morally justify kill the enemy on his own turf and coming home with a clean conscience.<br /><br />Let me know what you think of this theory ("International Bubble Theory"?) in your replies. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-52710289358832710412014-05-31T06:06:56.314-04:002014-05-31T06:06:56.314-04:00Read Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket&qu...<br />Read Smedley Butler's "War Is A Racket". That book certainly puts to test all the "moral justification" for U.S. military killing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10915326074094173436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-16168971709518448892013-06-25T21:39:34.818-04:002013-06-25T21:39:34.818-04:00One of the highest prices we have to pay for freed...One of the highest prices we have to pay for freedom even having to kill for it and bering that the rest of anyones life god bless keep sending down rang robertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-8215820283397186632013-04-18T15:41:58.483-04:002013-04-18T15:41:58.483-04:00Who declares a war as just? Governments, politicia...Who declares a war as just? Governments, politicians? Was the Iraq war a just war? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-4871590611900433242012-11-06T11:58:23.136-05:002012-11-06T11:58:23.136-05:00If someone kills some one to protect someone else ... If someone kills some one to protect someone else they're still guilty and nothing happens completely by accident accidents happen because of carelessness and they're are no excuses for mudder it's never right, nothing can keep you from being guilty unless you had nothing to do with it, everything is a combined effort from every thing else in the worldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-17278901429643020912012-09-04T12:10:49.509-04:002012-09-04T12:10:49.509-04:00Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can...Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.<br /><br />Anti Money Launderinghttp://aml-assassin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-70665722167876640982012-03-25T18:04:04.250-04:002012-03-25T18:04:04.250-04:00Well, let me start with a introduction to my situa...Well, let me start with a introduction to my situation. I am a newly enlisted Poolee to the USMC. My grandfather, a retired Marine turned minister, charged me to justify wartime killing.<br /><br />My observations, from this article and the previous comments, are that killing in war is justified.<br /><br />To support this arguement, I ask you to take into account both logical and holy contexts. Logically, you enlisted to serve, whether the government is corrupt or otherwise. If you think along the lines of the individual (and face it; does the government matter when you are in a battle?), then you need to think of your people and yourself before any corrupt politician. If you fail to defend them, their lives are possibly lost. Whether its a just war or unjust war, in the heat of the moment, only the unit matters. You defend not only yourself, but your comrades.<br /><br />Now, in God's eyes, murder is wrong. But keep in mind that self defense is justified killing, not murder. God understands if you kill to defend your unit. If you kill a non-combatant in a honest mistake, God will understand that you believed them a threat and dealt with the believed threat accordingly.<br /><br /><br />In conclusion, you need not fear for your soul for a killing in the name of defense of your unit, whether a mistaken identity or a serious threat. Yes, mourn the loss, but be not halted by it. Just know, you did not start this war. You just signed up to defend freedom. If any souls are at risk, its those that abuse your dedicated service.<br /><br />This is the answer I have arrived at through prayer and study. It is my answer. I don't know if it is your's, but it is an answer that may be your's as wellMark T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18279983032047142065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-46563621740396687272012-01-14T16:02:36.875-05:002012-01-14T16:02:36.875-05:00@ Quinn: great points! As a Soldier, I sure wish t...@ Quinn: great points! As a Soldier, I sure wish that the American People demanded that our leaders commit our military to war only when it is necesary to stop a great evil. <br /><br />Regarding the decision to go to war, the attitude of the electorate should be, "Hell no, we aren't going to war unless it's absolutely necessary to defend human life and liberty!" In fact, though, the electorate has been willing to send our troops off to war based on jingoistic assertions.<br /><br />The attitude of our military should be (as it is), "Hell yea! If you commit us to war we will win with honor!" Soldiers should fight in a war unless they are absolutely sure that the war is unjust. That level of confidence requires of them, as a minimum, a solid understanding of Just War Theory AND access to good information.<br /><br />I support selective conscientious objection for military personnel. 99% of troops will have no problem deploying and fighting for a just cause. When the people have demanded the war be just, then that will increase soldiers' confidence. There will always be a small cadre of cowards who join the military for wrong reasons, but they'll be who they are regardless of policy.Pete Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-43308891400306674682012-01-14T15:51:33.376-05:002012-01-14T15:51:33.376-05:00@ Chris: Your ideas about how soldiers should reco...@ Chris: Your ideas about how soldiers should reconcile acts of killing are interesting. Know that in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past five years or so, the US has paid salatia (reparations) to the families of any civilians we mistakenly kill, and the soldier's commander also often gives a personal apology. Both those acts are greatly appreciated by the families.<br /><br />Any killing of a noncombatant also automatically leads to an investigation. If the killing is found to be intentional, the soldier is prosectured for murder; if the soldier is found to have acted negligently, there are other sanctions; if the soldier is found to have been trying to do the right thing in the "fog of war," then the soldier is rightfully not punished. Trust me, most soldiers who unintentionally kill civilians are heartsick and full of guilt.<br /><br />--petePete Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-71385984129322881382012-01-13T07:12:18.820-05:002012-01-13T07:12:18.820-05:00I think this is an excellent discussion but some o...I think this is an excellent discussion but some of the theories are far from convincing. <br /><br />I have little to quibble with in your introduction but your "rights suspension" theory has me puzzled because it leaves questions unanswered. <br /><br />You assert "we recognize that if a person intentionally violates (or threatens to violate) the bubble of another, he forfeits his own bubble"<br /><br />You are correct that when someone threatens the life of another they can be legitimately killed but the reasoning you employ is flawed as the following example will illustrate. <br /><br />If a person in a state of automatism (sleep walking for example) is threatening someone's life then the law permits the threatened person or a bystander to intervene notwithstanding a lack of intent.<br /><br />Clearly a sleep walking person is morally "innocent" and by your own standard has not violated another person's "bubble" because there is a total lack of intent. Yet, in the same way that we can defend ourselves from animals who have no intent to violate our right not to be killed we may likewise defend ourselves from sleepwalkers or a person having an epileptic fit. Why is that if they have not intended to violate our right not to be killed?<br /><br />It is based on the principle that culpability is to be judged by the state of mind of the "attacker" or "offender" NOT the moral status of the "target" or "victim". It is not a question of deciding who possesses rights when, it is a question of deciding whether there was a justifiable infringement of another person's rights in the circumstances. <br /><br />There is no doubt that a sleepwalker has a moral and legal right not to be killed. However, we are justified in killing the morally innocent sleepwalker if and when we honestly believe they are an imminent threat to our lives or the lives of others. Our state of mind is key, not whether they are intending to violate our rights. We do not need to inquire into whether the sleepwalker could help himself or not, it is totally unnecessary. <br /><br />I would be surprised if there would be significant disagreement so far but now I will move on to more controversial examples. <br /><br />In case (1)person A pulls out a gun and is about to shoot person B who manages to dodge a shot, pull out their own gun and returns fire killing person A. According to your theory this is justified and in law it is also justified since they honestly believed their life was in imminent danger and used proportional force to neutralize that threat.<br /><br />In case (2) person A kills person B and walks off. Person C draws a gun and shoots person A killing them. According to your theory this may be justified since person A arguably forfeited his right not to be killed by killing person B. However, the situation in law (quite rightly in my opinion) is that person C is culpable unless they had an honest belief of an imminent threat to someone's life. Since person B is dead and person A is walking away there is no imminent threat which would satisfy the test for self-defense. <br /><br /><br />In case (3) person A discovers that person B has murdered a relative of theirs and kills person B. According to your theory it is still conceivable that person A can be legitimately killed since they forfeited their right not to be killed by violating another person's right not to be killed. As you can see your theory could conceivably justify reprisal killings which as you are no doubt aware is a violation of laws of war. <br /><br />I have proposed an alternative theory in line with the law and would appreciate some feedback if you disagree with my analysis or you feel I have not correctly interpreted your theory.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871945943320287209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-68272821046143621162011-05-17T04:40:39.288-04:002011-05-17T04:40:39.288-04:00Pete, I certainly agree with the crux of your argu...Pete, I certainly agree with the crux of your argument, but I find the biggest problem with defining just and defense. There needs to be an objective justness or semi-objective justness, on which to build a just cause for killing. If that exists, than an agent of justice is certainly morally justified in exterminating an agent of evil. But what is and is not a just cause, and what constitutes a defense?<br /><br />For example, in recent Middle Eastern conflicts, America has been more of a just attacker, than a just defender. Those who would kill Americans without provocation, are certainly unjust, but what of those who have been coaxed into killing by American occupation and a perceived attempt by the U.S. to eliminate traditional ideologies? Almost like an entrapment into bubble forfeiting. In the time prior to 9/11 the number of people actively engaging in the killing of Americans and allied citizens was small (maybe a few 100 or 1000). Mostly isolated terrorists attacks. Since the start of the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts, tens of thousands of new "unjust" attackers have been created. Under what definition are they attackers, and U.S. forces defenders? I would contend that within the idea of bubble forfeit, the people who have become violent possessed only a diluted will to violence. By invading, we gave them the means to act and strengthened their will to commit violence and forfeit their bubbles.<br /><br />Also important to the bubble method is the idea of a true just cause, and what adequately amounts to sacrificing ones bubble. I think most would agree that murder, rape, and mass humanitarian atrocities are bubble breakers. But what about things like suspending the freedoms of another, indoctrination, or threatening someone. Are these cause for bubble suspension to the point of justifying killing of the perpetrator? I would say that they are not, simply by the classic eye for eye justice. If we kill those for reasons other than an imminent threat of harm, we run the risk of fighting holy wars or ideological wars, which are not the conflicts of a just nation. I think Americans share a basic interest in preserving the lives of themselves and those of their fellow man, but I fear that if we extend the use of lethal force beyond what is necessary for this goal, then we begin to distort justice. America is the worlds most powerful country, and as part if that responsibility, we must attempt to preserve life, freedom, and justice above all else.<br /><br />I should mention that I am nonmilitary, and I have a great amount of respect for our armed forces. I think the ideas in this essay are sound, and I think they have excellent practical applications in helping soldiers cope with killing. I hope, as you seem to, that the military puts as much time into teaching people why to kill as it does into teaching them how. I worry about soldiers of these more morally nebulous times and conflicts being able to compartmentalize and figure out right and wrong, and I think work like yours and education are the only ways to make that happen. Best of luckQuinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03330325626728389030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-27336151430892609752010-12-08T02:35:54.452-05:002010-12-08T02:35:54.452-05:00To Josh:
In the case of war, I firmly believe tha...To Josh:<br /><br />In the case of war, I firmly believe that God will forgive those who have fought in war. Obviously you are concerned about your morality which means the most to God. Most likely, you didn't go into war with the thought "I want to kill as many people as I can." You acted in self defense, the protection of your comrades, and your country. Serving our country is an honorable act. Heroes have so many people praying for them and there is no doubt He hears our calls. You did no wrong.<br />God BlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-72621053008826324372010-07-15T13:59:19.764-04:002010-07-15T13:59:19.764-04:00Thank you. Agreed. My dilemma that extends from th...Thank you. Agreed. My dilemma that extends from this though stems from looking at the big picture. Even though it is a justified killing, it is done so for our government. War, to my understanding, roughly equates to greed and power struggles by those that are in power. Now say President X wants oil or land from Iraq. Despite what ruse he might cover it with, the bottom line is that I was sent to Iraq under the general guise to "fight for my country's freedom". Is killing for anyone else or indirectly through the hands of another dictating power ever justified? <br /><br />I can kind of understand the logic of justified killing in the "kill or be killed" sense of things, but I have a difficult time justifying this since my killing, even in sefl defense, would not have taken place if not for a controlling authority's greed. I can kind of see killing justified in self defense if a terrorist came into my house and tried to harm my family, but I cant see justification in killing someone from another country I invaded at the orders of President X. Bubble breaking or not, it gives me a small sense of peace to think that President X will one day be held accountable by God for not only causing death but also for putting us soldiers in a position where we have to cause death. <br /><br />If a soldier gets deployed and says "I'm not going to kill for my country in this particular instance as I see it being morally unjust"....what happens to the guy? Chances are pretty damn high that he is prosecuted and punished...whether or not he volunteered or was drafted, correct? <br /><br />So this shows that , even when we are acting under the orders of others to kill, and even though we are responding to our burst bubble, we still have the ability, logic and reason to choose not to kill. Since we still have these abilities, how is this not murder? If you take someones life, regardless of whether or not it in defense of your own, how is that not murder? <br /><br />I just dont, despite your very valid argument and reasoning, see how in the end, the bottom line, what I did was not murder and that God will let me scoot in to Heaven on a loop hole. <br /><br />I'm just trying to make sense of this. I really appreciate you helping me decipher this.Joshhttp://waveriderjh@yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-26638335097851029262010-07-14T20:50:46.543-04:002010-07-14T20:50:46.543-04:00Josh: I encourage you to investigate Catholic teac...Josh: I encourage you to investigate Catholic teaching. The accurate translation of the 5th Commandment is "Thou shall not murder." A morally justified killing is not murder.Pete Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-44931069886824099532010-07-14T18:04:43.715-04:002010-07-14T18:04:43.715-04:00Thank you for this however it still leaves an unto...Thank you for this however it still leaves an untouched issue that no doubt many soldiers and ex soldiers such as myself have floating around in our heads. After my Iraq experience in the early nineties I visited over 10 different heads of various churches and asked them all the same question "If we believe in God and the commandments he bestowed upon human kind, then does the fact that I violated 'thou shalt not kill' condemn me to hell?". No one had an answer. Again I see your argument however by this logic are we to assume that God, for those that believe, will bend his rules on a case by case basis? I believe in God and what the bible says and so according to the what we are taught, the only way I can prevent going to hell is to ask God to forgive me for my sins and hope he sees the murder (this is what it was, even though I was defending myself) as justified? I guess there is only one way to find out...and pray that God bends the rules. It's hard to go through life waiting to see what will happen. <br /><br />Its a tough one that I have been wrestling with for years.Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-67857135088170003682010-03-12T23:50:14.079-05:002010-03-12T23:50:14.079-05:00Chris: Thanks for sharing the link to The Problem ...Chris: Thanks for sharing the link to The Problem of War. It's a very good essay. I agree with almost everything Cole has to say. <br /><br />I object only--but strongly--to his implication that contemporary soldiers directly target innocent civilians and execute prisoners. So, while I think he does a great job of conveying C.S. Lewis' ideas in 98% of the essay, Cole himself falls prey to the lies of the anti-war activists near its conclusion.Pete Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-1047992668891506732010-03-05T18:19:33.653-05:002010-03-05T18:19:33.653-05:00Wow, this is indeed a very important discussion! W...Wow, this is indeed a very important discussion! We do need to instill a sense of morality, even chivalry, in our soldiers. Sometimes it seems the modern view is that "all war is horrible for all involved, but it's a grim necessity at times." This modern view ironically allows easier justification for killing civilians while doing nothing to help morale for the soldiers. Here is an interesting article on the subject: <a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-03-045-f" rel="nofollow">The Problem of War</a><br /><br />I think that one thing that ought to be instilled in a soldier (and those who send the soldier) is a respect for one's enemy. After all, at some point, don't you expect the war to end in peace? Does America have closer allies than Britain and Japan, both once bitter enemies of the United States?<br /><br />We ought to be willing to fight in a just war, willing even to use deadly force against our enemy. For, if our cause is just, it implies that we are working to stop a great evil. And shouldn't we wish that we were stopped even by deadly force, should we be engaged in great evil?<br /><br />But the great conundrum ought to be innocent deaths. Of course, from a purely logical standpoint, every innocent life that is taken increases the number of the enemy by ten or more, hence should be avoided at all costs. But in every war, just like in every large human endeavor, innocent people will die. What do we do with this? That's the real issue, not killing the enemy in a just war. I suggest that the soldier (or person responsible) personally apologize to the family, reparations be paid, and perhaps even be charged with involuntary manslaughter, if appropriate. It should be viewed as a question of honor, and only through personal contact can any rift be healed. Otherwise, resentment in the innocent person's family will build the enemy's army. Honestly, though, there are not easy answers.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06351683053386540739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-58125716120938495402010-02-02T09:13:51.098-05:002010-02-02T09:13:51.098-05:00Greg:
This essay is about killing enemy combatant...Greg:<br /><br />This essay is about killing enemy combatants. It sounds like you recognize the moral permissibility of that, which is good.<br /><br />I agree with you 100% that "killing an 'enemy combatant'" is very different than "murdering an innocent family."<br /><br />Yet your statement that killing an enemy combatant is "like gang war" indicates that you misunderstand my argument at a fundamental level. My argument relies on the moral inequality of soldiers on the just and unjust sides, whereas in gang warfare both sides are wrong. I recommend that you re-read the post, "The justice of the war matters!"<br /><br />What do you mean by "modern tools" that in your view cause civilians (do you mean to say noncombatants?) to be "murdered"? I've been to Iraq twice and head off to AFG again next week, and I find our targeting and weapons systems to be impressively precise.Pete Kilnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16027642894453539902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14902380.post-67281388266107311272010-02-02T03:20:50.715-05:002010-02-02T03:20:50.715-05:00Killing an "enemy combatant" is one thin...Killing an "enemy combatant" is one thing.<br /><br />Murdering an innocent family is another. <br /><br />I don't buy your argument in today's modern warfare. Using modern tools, it is most likely that civilians will be murdered.<br /><br />It's easy to justify killing another soldier. It's like a gang war then. More like the Mafia. It is a way of cleansing a very heinous crime. <br /><br />I guess soldiers need to rationalize crimes.greg crynshttp://greff.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com