Which is a more moral profession?

[Narz]

Came up in the thread about the ex-porn star reading to children.

Which do you think is more morally righteous, or, if you prefer, least morally repugnant?

For the purposes of this thread we're talking about a solider in the modern era in a first world country.

 

[azzaman333]

Neither of them are any more or less moral than the other.

 

[Defiant47]

A porn star is a special type of "actress", selling "services" for "entertainment".

A soldier is risking life to serve and protect the country and people he or she stands for.

One is a somewhat irregular (and commonly chastised) profession. The other signifies the greatest and noblest sacrifice one could make. There is no comparison. To suggest or imply there is, would be quite offensive and ignorant.

 

[Smellincoffee]

A porn star is a special type of "actress", selling "services" for "entertainment".

A soldier is risking life to serve and protect the country and people he or she stands for.

One is a somewhat irregular (and commonly chastised) profession. The other signifies the greatest and noblest sacrifice one could make. There is no comparison. To suggest or imply there is, would be quite offensive and ignorant.

You presume the soldier's motives.

 

[_random_]

Soldiers provided, you're not talking about a Marine.

Given that you recently created a thread about the virtues of violence, I'm a little surprised to see you asking this question.

 

[Defiant47]

You presume the soldier's motives.

"Risking life for people and country" is not a motive - it is an action. If a soldier has a motivation to protect and defend family, society, and country, then that only adds to the respect deserved.

In the end, your actual actions have a great impact, eclipsing your motives and intentions. A dumb soldier who doesn't know any better and joined the military without proper consideration, is still risking his or her life for the purposes of keeping his or her country* safe.

* - or even more noble, someone else's country

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Both are responsible for many deaths and crying wives.

Since one sits so close to murder it might as well be, I'll have to go with porn star.

 

[Narz]

Neither of them are any more or less moral than the other.

Come on, have an opinion! There are so different from each other that can't be totally equal in your mind.

A porn star is a special type of "actress", selling "services" for "entertainment".

A soldier is risking life to serve and protect the country and people he or she stands for.

One is a somewhat irregular (and commonly chastised) profession. The other signifies the greatest and noblest sacrifice one could make. There is no comparison. To suggest or imply there is, would be quite offensive and ignorant.

Like smellin say you presume motives. Some people become soliders so they can feel like big men or screw foreign women or get to carry guns or not have to get some crappy job or so they can get away from their boring lives.

I don't think even the least intelligent soldiers actually think they're protecting liberty or anything, everyone realizes it's about oil & politics.

We haven't had any pretenses about serving or protecting in decades, it's our enemies who are trying to protect their nations.

Soldiers provided, you're not talking about a Marine.

Given that you recently created a thread about the virtues of violence, I'm a little surprised to see you asking this question.

I didn't start a thread about the virtues of violence but questioned the efficacy of non-violence. That doesn't mean I support violence on the government's behalf.

In the end, your actual actions have a great impact, eclipsing your motives and intentions.

I agree. Being part of the war machine does have a terrible impact!

A dumb soldier who doesn't know any better and joined the military without proper consideration, is still risking his or her life for the purposes of keeping his or her country* safe.

He'd have to be dumb to think invading other nations for no reason is keeping our country safe.

I* - or even more noble, someone else's country

And dumber still to believe that slaughtering a million plus Iraqis for no reason is keeping them safe.

Both are responsible for many deaths and crying wives.

Since one sits so close to murder it might as well be, I'll have to go with porn star.

I don't know how many deaths are due to porn. Probably true about the crying wives though.

 

[Tee Kay]

"Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country." (Bertrand Russell)

Take from that what you will.

 

[Linkman226]

At risk of igniting the same fire in the Veterans Day thread, I will say this: Soldiers are murderers, and deluded though they may be in believing that their actions are noble, they are nonetheless culpable.

Naturally, the porn star plies the more moral good; while the soldier is the merchant of Death, the porn star merely sells her body (technically, media of it). The latter cannot be said to be any more immoral than an electrician or carpenter or lawyer, whereas the former can be equated with a suicide bomber, as both murder with risk to themselves for what they believe to be an honorable cause.

 

[azzaman333]

Come on, have an opinion! There are so different from each other that can't be totally equal in your mind.

I don't assign any level of morality to either. I'd be more likely to respect the soldier, since they're less likely to be doing it purely for themselves, but morality doesn't come into it.

 

[Defiant47]

Like smellin say you presume motives. Some people become soliders so they can feel like big men or screw foreign women or get to carry guns or not have to get some crappy job or so they can get away from their boring lives.

Your bias is showing. Regardless, even if they are brutish barbarians, the military disciplines them into upstanding citizens. You don't get to serve in the military if you don't have the utmost of discipline and obey the orders from higher-up.

I agree. Being part of the war machine does have a terrible impact!

Depends on whose war machine we're talking about.

He'd have to be dumb to think invading other nations for no reason is keeping our country safe.

It's not for no reason, and it's not directly affecting our country safety (more of an indirect effect).

And dumber still to believe that slaughtering a million plus Iraqis for no reason is keeping them safe.

Believe it or not, slaughtering those thousands of Iraqis saved even more Iraqis from brutal oppression.

The world isn't black-and-white "kill and you're a murderer". If you have to kill to save even more lives, then you are doing the right thing. If you have to kill to save less lives than you are killing, you could still be doing the right thing if the killed combatants were immoral and tyrannical enough to justify their execution*.

* - Though typically in this situation, it's their resistance that leads to and justifies the ultimate penalty being their elimination.

 

[luiz]

I think neither is immoral, but I'd much prefer my (hypothetical) son to becomes a solider than a porn star...

 

[ParkCungHee]

The world isn't black-and-white "kill and you're a murderer".

No one ever takes this stance with other moral impairments.
"The world is not black and white. 'Have sex with someone against their will and you're a rapist.'"

 

[Defiant47]

Soldiers are murderers, and deluded though they may be in believing that their actions are noble, they are nonetheless culpable.

Anyone that is not a soldier is a murderer. You would willingly sit by while oppressive tyrannical regimes slaughter innocents just to retain power. You would willingly sit by while roaming gangs and tribes perform unthinkable genocidal rampages.

If you're not willing to stand up against these injustices, and try to protect the innocent lives at stake at whatever cost, including killing lives who are rightly forfeit, then there is little difference between that and actually performing these atrocities yourself.

Like 24 has taught us: if you're willing to sit by and do nothing while a bomb goes off, then it is as if you are arming that bomb yourself.

DISCLAIMER: post is addressed to Linkman226 specifically, and contains hyperbole and exaggeration in kind, for the purposes of a demonstration of ideas

 

[Tee Kay]

At risk of igniting the same fire in the Veterans Day thread, I will say this: Soldiers are murderers, and deluded though they may be in believing that their actions are noble, they are nonetheless culpable.

This is, basically, what I think. I'm not one to demonise soldiers for doing what they do, though. I respect soldiers, mourn their deaths and wear poppies on Remembrance Day, but less out of any illusion of the nobility of their sacrifice than out of recognition and mourning for the senseless violence that we continually inflict on each other and is often out of our control.

 

[Defiant47]

No one ever takes this stance with other moral impairments.
"The world is not black and white. 'Have sex with someone against their will and you're a rapist.'"

If you were raping someone that had forfeited their right to life through their actions, and raping them would cause a whole bunch more rapes to be averted, then it would be acceptable.

However, given the parameters of the situation being impossible and nonsensical, we don't see such a stance occurring with certain moral impairments such as this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

However, given the parameters of the situation being impossible, we don't see such a stance occurring with certain moral impairments such as this.

Sure we do. If you accept the logic of defending your country justifies immoral acts, rape as a duty of soldiers becomes pretty damn common.

 

[Linkman226]

Anyone that is not a soldier is a murderer. You would willingly sit by while oppressive tyrannical regimes slaughter innocents just to retain power. You would willingly sit by while roaming gangs and tribes perform unthinkable genocidal rampages.

If you're not willing to stand up against these injustices, and try to protect the innocent lives at stake at whatever cost, including killing lives who are rightly forfeit, then there is little difference between that and actually performing these atrocities yourself.

Like 24 has taught us: if you're willing to sit by and do nothing while a bomb goes off, then it is as if you are arming that bomb yourself.

DISCLAIMER: post is addressed to Linkman226 specifically, and contains hyperbole and exaggeration in kind, for the purposes of a demonstration of ideas

The irony is that no tyrannical, genocidal, and/or democidal regime could exist in the first place without the brawn of the soldier.

 

[Defiant47]

Sure we do. If you accept the logic of defending your country justifies immoral acts, rape as a duty of soldiers becomes pretty damn common.

You missed my point.

If that rape itself was committed against guilty parties and directly led to the moral betterment of society or other, then it would be fine. Otherwise, not.

The reason why this idea is nonsensical is that it's not possible for rape to be the best choice in avoiding moral harm - if you have to rape someone to prevent them from doing harm to others, then you can likewise detain them.

Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't "defending our country" as much as protecting the indigenous people (like from the Taliban). The goal and ends of defending innocent lives justifies the use of force and a usually immoral act - that of killing someone (specifically, Taliban extremists).

No, trying to do something moral does not mean that you can do whatever you want, whether it achieves that moral goal or not. Your jumping the gun was quite unwarranted and frustrating.