Torture vs Drones

[Flying Pig]

'Winning at all costs' is, at the risk of using an overused phrase, what the bad guys do.

 

[Chiteng]

'Winning at all costs' is, at the risk of using an overused phrase, what the bad guys do.

Not something I have said.
Those are your words.

 

[El_Machinae]

The purpose of war, is to win.
If you dont intend to win, then you are simply a warmonger.
Other people picking up the blood tab, for your indulgence.

There have been other wars since WW2, all of them fought the wrong way.
Including the military parade that took Baghdad.
When you start lining up the NVietnamese that committed warcrimes, you can talk to me about ours. I can tell you what the NVets said to us.
'We are not at war. There is no declaration. YOU are nothing but a mercenary.'

No war. No war crimes.

None of which impacts the reality of the USA being run by men who do NOT value human life the way 'I' might, or 'you' might.

"The purpose of war, is to win."

Sure. Then the debate migrates to "what constitutes 'winning?'". Like any self-defense scenario, you want to use the minimum reasonable force that allows you to protect the person being threatened.

 

[classical_hero]

I would refuse to make the choice. There's simply no intristic reason I should pick one over the other. I'd leave it to God.

If someone put a gun to the head of two people and said "Name one so I can kill that one" I'd refuse to answer, and if that meant he killed both and me, so be it, I didn't do anything unethical and so I am in right standing before my God.

I would say that if you don't make a choice, both will die. We live in a world where we have to make choices that we would rather not have to. We don't live in a perfect world you can play by the rules you want to play by. Often we live in a world sometimes you have to make a choice and someone dies as a result. It is pretty simple that inaction is often worse than action.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would say that if you don't make a choice, both will die. We live in a world where we have to make choices that we would rather not have to. We don't live in a perfect world you can play by the rules you want to play by. Often we live in a world sometimes you have to make a choice and someone dies as a result. It is pretty simple that inaction is often worse than action.

That's an unChristian way of looking at it.

Note that we're talking about deliberately killing someone innocent so somebody else can live. Self-defense is a different situation to me, since you are killing an actual criminal in order to stop him from committing a crime against you.

The same thing is sometimes true in war, but not when you're bombing their civilians.

 

[Borachio]

I think this is one of those hypothetical situations that are just plain absurd.

If someone tells me to decide which person they should shoot, and that if I don't they'll shoot both, I can't be held responsible for any action that person does. Whatever I do.

The only rational decision, imo, is not to play the game. Cost what it may.

 

[Global Skeptic]

That's an unChristian way of looking at it.

Note that we're talking about deliberately killing someone innocent so somebody else can live. Self-defense is a different situation to me, since you are killing an actual criminal in order to stop him from committing a crime against you.

The same thing is sometimes true in war, but not when you're bombing their civilians.

That has nothing to do with war as such. Triage is the real life civilian equivalent, so now GW you are deciding who should live and how should die. You got 6 critically wounded and limited resources to deploy. 5 of the wounded seem to be able to make it, but for number 6 you will have to use a lot of resources. Do you commit to try to save the 5 and let number 6 die?

 

[GhostWriter16]

'Winning at all costs' is, at the risk of using an overused phrase, what the bad guys do.

This is true.

I think this is one of those hypothetical situations that are just plain absurd.

If someone tells me to decide which person they should shoot, and that if I don't they'll shoot both, I can't be held responsible for any action that person does. Whatever I do.

The only rational decision, imo, is not to play the game. Cost what it may.

Indeed. If you do tell the person to shoot one or the other, you bear some responsibility, but if you refuse to play the game, only the criminal has any responsibility.

This is somewhat different from a case where two people are drowing and you only have time to save one. In that case, you are a hero whoever you save and a jerk if you do nothing since in that case you aren't killing anyone or dooming anyone to death, but are saving someone instead.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That has nothing to do with war as such. Triage is the real life civilian equivalent, so now GW you are deciding who should live and how should die. You got 6 critically wounded and limited resources to deploy. 5 of the wounded seem to be able to make it, but for number 6 you will have to use a lot of resources. Do you commit to try to save the 5 and let number 6 die?

In that case, yes, you try to save as many as you can and hope for the best. Because in that case you aren't doing anything wrong, you are doing as much good as you can.

On the other hand, in the scenario Borachio and I were just discussing, you don't say anything because to say "Kill this one" is to sanction the crime.

If two people were dying, and you had the power to save one or the other, would you try to save someone from your own country with only a 45% success rate, or save a person from another country with 90%?


To me, I pick the second person there...

However, if I could make an attempt to save both, even if the odds were very low, I'd try to save both and leave the results up to God...

 

[Borachio]

For the triage, the correct answer is, I believe, "It depends".

 

[Formaldehyde]

That has nothing to do with war as such. Triage is the real life civilian equivalent, so now GW you are deciding who should live and how should die. You got 6 critically wounded and limited resources to deploy. 5 of the wounded seem to be able to make it, but for number 6 you will have to use a lot of resources. Do you commit to try to save the 5 and let number 6 die?

You raise a very valid point that is actually germane to the discussion.

If a 5-year-old Afghan child lay mortally wounded, through no fault of his own or his parents, alongside a 21-year-old American private who volunteered to be there, which would the Army medic likely treat first? Would his decision change if Anderson Cooper was standing over him with a CNN film crew speculating which he would treat first and why he made that decision?

 

[classical_hero]

You raise a very valid point that is actually germane to the discussion.

If a 5-year-old Afghan child lay mortally wounded through no fault of his own or his parents, alongside a 21-year-old American private who volunteered to be there, which would the Army medic likely treat first? Would his decision change if Anderson Cooper was standing over him with a CNN film crew?

It depends on who is in a worse condition. If they are both equally injured then I would go for the private since he is more likely to survive over a child who has less strength to survive the injuries sustained.

@GW, some times you have to make hard decision. For the most part we don't have to, but some people are put in a situation where human lives are at stake and as a result of their action lives could be lost or saved due to their choice, you just have to be prepared to make a choice in a life or death situation since in some case if you refuse to do anything over the fact you don't want to have to make a decision.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You raise a very valid point that is actually germane to the discussion.

If a 5-year-old Afghan child lay mortally wounded through no fault of his own or his parents, alongside a 21-year-old American private who volunteered to be there, which would the Army medic likely treat first? Would his decision change if Anderson Cooper was standing over him with a CNN film crew?

I would save the five year old if it were up to me. I really, REALLY hate to say it, but frankly, the war was blatantly immoral and we went into their country when we should not have done so, while the five year old was entirely innocent. Of course, I consider Presidents Bush/Obama the true murderers, not the common soldier, but the five year old has no blood on his hands. I have to treat him first.

If I could save both, I would do so. If I could TRY to save both, and there were any chance of this, even if there were also a chance both would die, I would try.

What would a US Army medic do? What do you think?

If we cared about them we would never have attacked

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You raise a very valid point that is actually germane to the discussion.

If a 5-year-old Afghan child lay mortally wounded, through no fault of his own or his parents, alongside a 21-year-old American private who volunteered to be there, which would the Army medic likely treat first? Would his decision change if Anderson Cooper was standing over him with a CNN film crew speculating which he would treat first and why he made that decision?

He would most likely choose to help the one who needs it more if we can get past the 'American soldier have max bloodlust' characterization that is implied in this question.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You missed the entire point of the hypothetical. They both will likely die if they don't receive immediate medical aid from the medic first.

As for the rest, does this comment you just made this morning without any similar merit ring any bells at all?

If that's a take on what I've said in this thread, then I'm actually offended.

 

[MobBoss]

The purpose of war, is to win.

Well, I think the purpose of war is to achieve your political goal. Lets not forget Clauswitz.

But if you are going to engage in war, it is generally preferable to win (although Germany and Japan seem to have made out ok from WWII).

No war. No war crimes.

Well, thats simply false on its face. There does not have to be a formal declaration of war for war crimes to occur.

I think this is one of those hypothetical situations that are just plain absurd.

If someone tells me to decide which person they should shoot, and that if I don't they'll shoot both, I can't be held responsible for any action that person does. Whatever I do.

Except you could save one by making a simple choice. If you fail to make it, their death is indeed predication upon your own lack of action.

The only rational decision, imo, is not to play the game. Cost what it may.

You do realize that is still playing the game, right?

You raise a very valid point that is actually germane to the discussion.

If a 5-year-old Afghan child lay mortally wounded, through no fault of his own or his parents, alongside a 21-year-old American private who volunteered to be there, which would the Army medic likely treat first? Would his decision change if Anderson Cooper was standing over him with a CNN film crew speculating which he would treat first and why he made that decision?

A couple of thoughts. If both are mortally wounded, the medic would try to stabilize the private and then move to stabilize the child. If other soldiers are present, then both would be worked on as all soldiers are trained in basic lifesaving techniques. There is also a possibility that the medic is part of the same team or unit as the private, so the concern of a mortally wounded friend as opposed to a stranger would also apply. Of course, if the wound to the private is minor, then the child gets primary attention.

 

[Flying Pig]

As a first aid instructor, I should make the immediate point that it is not your responsibility to save anyone - you give what help you can, but if you achieve nothing, you have still done your duty. You don't have to stop to help people at all, especially if there is some danger inherent in doing so, although the overwhelming majority of first aiders would do so up to a certain point. Certainly, we reiterate to our students again and again that playing the hero and creating a second casualty isn't very clever.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You missed the entire point of the hypothetical. They both will likely die if they don't receive immediate medical aid from the medic first.

As for the rest, does this comment you just made this morning without any similar merit ring any bells at all?

The medic is whoever he thinks can benefit the most from it right then. That's the call they have to make every day. But sure, the CNN reporter will make him stop being an immoral prick and help the little boy even if he thinks the soldier could be better helped.

 

[Global Skeptic]

As a first aid instructor, I should make the immediate point that it is not your responsibility to save anyone - you give what help you can, but if you achieve nothing, you have still done your duty. You don't have to stop to help people at all, especially if there is some danger inherent in doing so, although the overwhelming majority of first aiders would do so up to a certain point. Certainly, we reiterate to our students again and again that playing the hero and creating a second casualty isn't very clever.

As to the bold part - responsibility - that depends on the law of the land and in the end morality/ethics.

 

[El_Machinae]

@GW, some times you have to make hard decision. For the most part we don't have to, but some people are put in a situation where human lives are at stake and as a result of their action lives could be lost or saved due to their choice, you just have to be prepared to make a choice in a life or death situation since in some case if you refuse to do anything over the fact you don't want to have to make a decision.

Oh, yea of little faith.