airborne Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) In Israel there is a story(a real one) which is constantly told to emphasize how moral the Israeli army is. A group of soldiers are sent to capture/assassinate terrorists in the west bank. Before reaching the village an arab villager spots them. They have two choices. A) Kill him B ) Let him go - and suffer the consequences if he warns the terrorists The soldiers chose B ) but I think A) should have been the way to go as the soldiers are the first priority and any compromise could mean unnecessary injuries/fatalities. I'll provide the rest of the story soon. Edited November 21, 2007 by airborne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Blogs Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 In Israel there is a story(a real one) which is constantly told to emphasize how moral the Israeli army is. A group of soldiers are sent to capture/assassinate terrorists in the west bank. Before reaching the village an arab villager spots them. They have two choices. A) Kill him B ) Let him go - and suffer the consequences if he warns the terrorists The soldiers chose B ) but I think A) should have been the way to go as the soldiers are the first priority and any compromise could mean unnecessary injuries/fatalities. I'll provide the rest of the story soon. A very similar situation happened with American soldiers in Afghanistan. They also did the altruistically correct thing. The consequences were horrendous. I blogged about "Christian warfare" here, including a link to the original news article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moebius Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Does it make a difference where the civilian happens to reside? Like if you're tracking Timothy McVay in downtown Manhattan, should you then be allowed to kill a bunch of Americans in case they warn him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Does it make a difference where the civilian happens to reside? Yes, but there may be other factors as well. But Socratically addressing your question, are you protecting your country's citizens if you blow your own citizen's away trying to stop the terrorist from blowing them away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborne Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) The man in question was not israeli. I don't think a country should ever blow its own citizens away - no sacrifices to the greater good. RESULT: They went with the altruistic "moral" choice "". Upon entering the village they were ambushed by an informed militia and their bodies were mutilated. Edited November 21, 2007 by airborne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 A) Kill him B ) Let him go - and suffer the consequences if he warns the terrorists You could also try to detain him, but that isn't always a choice. If you can't spare the manpower to hold him while the rest of the unit carries on the mission, it's worse than useless. In hostile territory one is justified in killing anyone posing a threat, even a potential one. The possibility that a man may warn your targets is definitely a threat. Of course, there is a very rational reluctance to kill other people, especially if it seems or feel unnecesary. A soldier may decide he doesn't want to kill a potential threat. If he does, he should do so with the knowledge he's placing his life in the hands of a random stranger who's not loyal to his side, and who probably hates him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 I can't believe they sacrifice their own soldiers to save the terrorist's accomplices! they are so immoral - eww I hate isreal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 The man in question was not israeli. I don't think a country should ever blow its own citizens away - no sacrifices to the greater good. RESULT: They went with the altruistic "moral" choice "". Upon entering the village they were ambushed by an informed militia and their bodies were mutilated. What if those citizens are Terrorist accomplices or Terrorists themselves? Or what if there is a choice between 10 citizens or 300 citizens dying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborne Posted November 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) What if those citizens are Terrorist accomplices or Terrorists themselves? Or what if there is a choice between 10 citizens or 300 citizens dying? When I said "I dont think a country should ever blow its citizens away" I was saying it within the context of an innocent civilian in answer to RationalBiker who said "are you protecting your country's citizens if you blow your own citizen's away trying to stop the terrorist from blowing them away?" If there is hard and certain evidence that they are accomplices or terrorist then killing them may be warranted in a quick life or death situation, such as a mission. What do you mean if there is a choice between 10 citizens or 300 citizens dieing? if someone presents me suddenly with this option ? Edited November 21, 2007 by airborne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 what about non-lethal weapons? they could paralyze him with cicute (or whatever you translate that amerindian poison) and then carry on with the mission. And, what about if the arab is a kid (who'll surely warn everybody of the israeli presence) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moebius Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 And, what about if the arab is a kid (who'll surely warn everybody of the israeli presence) ? Well I mean, if you were willing to kill an adult to preserve your mission, I don't see why you wouldn't kill a kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 I can't believe they sacrifice their own soldiers to save the terrorist's accomplices! they are so immoral - eww I hate isreal America is not much better in this respect. (Probably even worse.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 what about non-lethal weapons? That depends on the individual circumstances. The moral dilemna remains when you add this to the hypothetical; non-lethal weapons are not a viable option. What then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pizzo Posted November 23, 2007 Report Share Posted November 23, 2007 (edited) Some of the things some of you have said are really surprising me, especially since they are coming from people who I believe to be objectivist... What happened to absolutes? What is the difference between 10 citizens and 300? To me, that sounds like caring about the greater good. I can't see justification in killing a person unless you are absolutely certain that they are aiding terrorists, which is the same as aiding the use of force. Only respond with force when force is used against you. Edited November 23, 2007 by Jon Pizzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Some of the things some of you have said are really surprising me, especially since they are coming from people who I believe to be objectivist... What happened to absolutes? What is the difference between 10 citizens and 300? To me, that sounds like caring about the greater good. I can't see justification in killing a person unless you are absolutely certain that they are aiding terrorists, which is the same as aiding the use of force. Only respond with force when force is used against you. So when force is constantly and consistently used against you (and your whole city and country), and you try to retaliate but the enemy uses inoccent human shields. Is it inmoral to wipe those shields to get the enemy? I think not. I believe that the death of those human shields is the complete responsibility of the enemy. Not retaliating at all on the other hand, not to kill civilians, is just pacifics, and will only lead to your destruction. A note on Israel: Now, I like it, it's the best place in the region, I even have some familly there. But I don't see things too completely black and white in this case. Israel is only there because of religion, but now many people already live there. However the problem of the stinking medieval rathole that is Jerusalem (compared to beautiful inspiring cities like Haffa or Elat) continues to complicates things further for strictly religious matters. Killing inoccents to defend the site of the holy temple of sacrifice is prepostrous. Killing them to defend millionary settlements, isn't. And oversettling the suburbs of J'Salem in order to invoke the latter, is also prepostrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) [suppose] the enemy uses inoccent human shields. Is it inmoral to wipe those shields to get the enemy? I think not. I believe that the death of those human shields is the complete responsibility of the enemy. Not retaliating at all on the other hand, not to kill civilians, is just pacifics, and will only lead to your destruction. Assuming that this is a hostage situation, I do not think it is automatically moral to just mow down the human shields in addition to the enemy. It depends on your capability. If you have a sniper who can cleanly and easily neutralize the hostage taker, then that is a safer option than to kill both the hostage and the bad guy. Of course, there are cases when one cannot defend oneself without losing a few of the hostages. But, as stated previously, it is the hostage taker who put them at risk in the first place. Israel is only there because of religion, This statement omits essential historic details. Zionism was driven by many significant ideas in addition to religion. For example, the desire to create a safe haven for ethnic jews from pogroms. The chance to establish an "ideal" socialist state was another factor. The notion that every ethnic group has the "right" to its own country was also motivation for some of the 20th century Zionists. Needless to say, Zionism was a package deal of good and bad political ideas. Edited December 4, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) 1) I wasn't thinking of a hostage situation, I was thinking more of how palestinians use their children as cannon fodder. 2) I meant to say Israel is in that particular geographical place because of religion - and I should add of a very awful variant of judaism: a) if it wasn't for Jerusalem the jewish state would be in Madagascar or Patagonia. IT it wasnt for nationalism and socialism there would not be jewish state, just communities in America, Argentina, Australia as there are in reallity. And finally, if history was any fair "israeliland" would now occupy half of Germany. Actually if it wasnt for religion, the middle east would be the worst coneivable place to begin a new nation-project. For the last thousend of years jewish identity involved diaspora, internationalism, and that produced some of the best trait of judaism. But more importantly: In Judaism, since the priests were killed in Babylon, there is no godly official jewish intstitution nor authority. Rabbies are authorities by merit not by magic. Judaism is not as awful as say Catholicism because there are not priests left, and there is no temple of israel in Salem. Zionism thus involves going back to the worst (although more sacred) period of judaism. Edited December 4, 2007 by volco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) I wasn't thinking of a hostage situation, I was thinking more of how palestinians use their children as cannon fodder. Even here, since they are children who probably do not know any better, I would advocate trying to avoid slaughtering them alongside the bad guys. Of course, when groups such as Hamas conduct operations under a hospital or a school, it makes sparing the children difficult. Only a group of monsters would put young children at risk by keeping them in close proximity to a base of operations for terrorism. I meant to say Israel is in that particular geographical place because of religion Well, Israel was established in its present geographical location because there were many Jews already residing in the area. I am confident that many of them were there for religious reasons, but I think were other essential motivations, such as seeking protection from pogroms and anti-semitism in Europe and the Middle East. I recommend viewing the Wikipedia article on the many aliyahs. Edited December 5, 2007 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senator Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) I am disgusted that A) is even an "objectivist" option. Sorry, but you do not have yourself the right to help yourself on others peoples lives, I dont find it that tough a concept to understand. I don't care if you "need" or "have to" or "your life depends on" someone else's. That's like saying that if I have an illness, which by killing someone will get cured, I can do so. Thievery and looting. Unless the PERSON (not collectivist lazy classification like race, religion or territory) has enacted an objective act of aggression against you, eg, shooting at you, he is innocent. Edited December 18, 2007 by Senator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) ... but you do not have yourself the right to help yourself on others peoples lives, I don't find it that tough a concept to understand.The context here is that this is a situation of war. In other words, other people are (as you put it) helping themselves to your life, and you are only responding, not initiating force. This situation is similar to when a country bombs an enemies cities. Edited December 18, 2007 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senator Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) The context here is that this is a situation of war. In other words, other people are (as you put it) helping themselves to your life, and you are only responding, not initiating force. This situation is similar to when a country bombs an enemies cities. Other people might be. However, until that civilian enacts some kind of positively proven use of force against you, eg, shooting at you, he as a Individual is innocent. I don't care what other collectivist label (race, religion, geographic coordinates) you put on it to remove that personhood and put some form of collective guilt on it. Edited December 18, 2007 by Senator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 I think I agree with Senator and John Pizzo on this one. Were I a member of the Isreali or American forces in the two examples cited, I am quite sure I would not have been able to shoot an unarmed, potentially innocent civilian even if failing to do so put my life and my mission in greater jeopardy. As badly as the two scenarios turned out, I think the soldiers made the right moral decision in not killing the civilian. I think the best thing to do if you are behind enemy lines and your cover is potentially blown is to abort the mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 However, until that civilian enacts some kind of positively proven use of force against you, eg, shooting at you, he as a Individual is innocent.I don't think that's in question. The moral blame for the shooting lies not with the soldiers, it lies with the terrorists who brought about the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrevux Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 A very similar situation happened with American soldiers in Afghanistan. They also did the altruistically correct thing. The consequences were horrendous. I blogged about "Christian warfare" here, including a link to the original news article. Woudn't this be infringing on the civilian's rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrevux Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 I don't think that's in question. The moral blame for the shooting lies not with the soldiers, it lies with the terrorists who brought about the situation. Shouldn't one only retaliate against the specific individual who iniated force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.