1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Which is a more moral profession?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 18, 2011.

?

Which is the more righteous profession?

  1. Porn Star

    46.4%
  2. Modern Solidier

    53.6%
  1. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,975
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Porn is a reflection of the freedoms our soldiers have fought for. To not make porn is immorally spitting in the face of our soldiers.
     
  2. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,869
    Your degenerate American soldiers, maybe. Certainly not our brave Russian soldiers, who fight for morality and decency and against American liberasty.
     
  3. strijder20

    strijder20 Wallowing in irony

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,047
    Location:
    In Dystopia
    Lone Wolf! What are you, comrade, doing ? Bringing our great worker republic in shame by negotiating by filthy 1% capitalist pigs! Get back here, and stop role-playing, confusing people about whether you are serious or not!
     
  4. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    The transition to democracy may well be a tough one, either way you cut it. Look at Iraq and look at Egypt. So if you live in a place like that, then you'd have to fear for your life every day because of the system you live in; you'd have to fear for the violence that will ensue as part of the transition; you'd have to fear not dying when foreign invaders decide to liberate you.

    So yes, be glad you live in a good democracy with an excellent standard of living, but don't just stop there. Don't think about yourself only; try to bring it upon others as well.

    Because I believe we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

    When I say, "I want to fight for my country," I really mean that I want to fight for the people within, and the society thereof.

    In the modern era, when we wage war, it's to help others. Soldiers go to war and risk their lives, not for our benefit, but for the sake of people around the world that they don't even know.

    By judge I mean, impose our views using an appropriate level of coercion or force. Mistreat citizens, we use economic sanctions. Massacre dissenting protesters, we come in full military force.

    Actually, we acknowledge that most of "their" soldiers may well be innocent (one of the points of Remembrance Day). The real demons are the ones in charge, and the soldiers who are complicit or supportive.

    Other than the hyperbole, what's hypocritical about it? Soldiers that serve to protect and defend our country's citizens or others, will be more "saintly" than soldiers that serve to oppress and slaughter innocents for a tyrannical government.

    I don't see how this isn't obvious :confused:

    I'll see your hyperbole, and raise you another.

    Not only are soldiers always engaged in a noble profession, but anything that soldiers ever do is just and righteous.

    And I'm sure if you intervene in a violent husband brutally beating his wife to death, you'll end up with bruises yourself, which wouldn't be there if you hadn't been meddling in the first place.

    And as a result of your intervention, both yourself and the husband might end up dead, rather than just the wife if you had left the situation alone.

    Grunts, NCOs or officers?
     
  5. strijder20

    strijder20 Wallowing in irony

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,047
    Location:
    In Dystopia
    Perhaps you do. Doesn't mean every soldier in the world does it.
    You aren't always fighting for the people in your country, despite how much you'd like to do so. Take the Middle-Eastern wars (I'm taking these as they seem to be the most recent conflict in which 'modern' soldiers have participated) : no doubt those soldiers weren't only fighting for theirpeople and the people there, but also for oil and Bush's votes.
    And do those people really want to get 'liberated'? Ask yourself that question. It might seem a democracy with equal rights with everyone, but that doesn't change what happens behind closed doors. A wife protesting against inequality might get tortured by her husband the day after. A man giving some food to exhausted American soldiers might be found dead in a desert the next week.
    Don't believe they are making it all better. Who says that the democracy in the 'liberated' countries will last?
     
  6. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,118
    :rotfl:

    Some soldiers may actually believe that, I'll grant you that.

    But the truth is that all wars are fought for control, for power, and what the winner makes with control is entirely dependent on the specific circumstance. "Modern wars" are not, generally speaking, about "helping" other people. I wouldn't expect anything altruistic from people willing to go to war for control. "War for other people's sake" is a fallacy.

    Soldiers themselves go to wear either because they like it or because they got stuck in the war and can't find any easy way to evade it, thus would rather risk it. And the story of the heroic soldier sacrificing himself for his country and people is just one of the ways of making sure soldiers get stuck in the wars. A way to manipulate them psychologically into not evading the war, even if they don't like it.
    If they are helping someone it's their commanders in achieving the war goals. That, and only that, is their indented function. As for what those goals are and how good they are, we can argue at length about any war.
     
  7. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    True until 1945, arguably true until the late sixties, completely reversed nowadays. Nowadays those wars which we do fight are almost all far more difficult and dangerous than the political gains that result from them - Sierra Leone, Desert Storm, and Afghanistan to name a few. We've ended up fighting wars out of a sense of justice, and whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate

    One of the soldiers on this forum considers that statement completely wrong.
     
  8. Ayatollah So

    Ayatollah So the spoof'll set you free

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,388
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    Pornstars have the legal right to quit at any time, for any reason. So if the director tells them to do something they find immoral, they can say no and walk away freely. Not so for the modern soldier. Saying no will get you jailed, if not killed. And what is worse (in terms of summoning the motivation to do what's right), it will make you a pariah.

    Now a few outstanding characters might have balls of steel and be perfectly willing to say no when needed. Good on them. They can choose any profession without fear of bad moral consequences. Except - if you have any loved ones, putting yourself at such large risk of jail or death, is also immoral, because of the burdens it imposes on them. So, don't sign up, unless your nation is governed by such moral beacons that it will never pursue an unjust war, or use unjust methods. In short: don't sign up.
     
  9. Eat_Up_Martha

    Eat_Up_Martha Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    Canada
    I'd like to discuss the relevance of this.

    In my opinion, it's a largely irrelevant statement concerning the original point. The nature of the conflict and which side the soldier fights for is not an issue. I don't think that the overall political issues of the war itself have any effect on the inherent nobility of the profession.

    As stated by the OP, we're considering a modern soldier. I think, although it's not expressly stated, that soldiers in question are those of a Western nation, probably America. These men and women are volunteers, not conscripts. They have made a conscious decision to put their lives on the line to defend an ideal, for better or for worse.

    Ultimately, I feel that the decision to kill and/or die for an ideal is an inherently noble pursuit. For better or for worse, these people are trying to make the world a better place. And yes, I feel that the same goes for Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, the PLA, or the Lord's Resistance Army (well, maybe not them; child soldiers and all...).

    The inherent morality of the soldier's profession is separate from the war or the political entity they serve. The choice to put one's life on the line to make a better world, regardless of what my opinion of that world may be, strikes me as a noble act.

    If we're not going to separate the soldier from the war, then this is really an issue of whether or not we think the current wars are moral. That, while a worthwhile discussion, is not the stated OP.
     
  10. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,118
    ok, I'm sure that it applies better to the conscripts of past wars than to the present professional soldiers. But I can't think of other reasons for volunteering that that the people doing it like it, or just need the money. What else does make a soldier pick that job?
     
  11. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I'll give you a hint: there's more to soldiering than fighting - it's a job like any other to some extent - and few people have the same view of combat going into their second tour as their first. Unless you're telling me that all bankers do their job either because they love selling mortgages or because they're trapped in their company?
     
  12. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,075
    Location:
    Kael's head
    It is inherently noble to choose to kill or die for an ignoble ideal? I don't think so.
     
  13. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    It depends on the individual's moral definitions.

    According to mine? Porn star is far more moral.

    Killing has obviously been deemed immoral by generations upon generations. This is reflected by thousands of years of civilizations across the globe, both modern and prehistoric, instituting laws that prohibit killing. Although these laws could be interpreted as a convenience for society to function, I don't that is the case with the majority of peoples' moral definitions.

    A soldier typically signs up for the job without any sense of vengeance prompting the desire to become a part of the military. This in itself violates most peoples' moral definitions because they are announcing that they are willing to kill someone FIRST, without any sort of malicious action towards them personally.

    Secondly, soldiers generally are taking orders from people when they kill others. This supports the immoral accusation in the previous claim.
     
  14. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I'd say that to be willing to fight and die for anything deserves respect, whatever we think of the actual politics involved.
     
  15. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,008
    Location:
    Estonia
    I don't know how many our soldiers have killed, buy we've definitely lost around a dozen men in Afghanistan (plus ~60 wounded) and few in Iraq as well.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Afghanistan_Contingent

    EDIT: As for the OP, the question is nonsensical.
    Soldiers may both start wars and kill innocent people (immoral) and prevent wars and save innocent people (very moral).
     
  16. MantaRevan

    MantaRevan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,537
    A porn star provides a service that people can enjoy- although one that isn't socially accepted. There isn't anything amoral about it. A soldier kills people. And since the type of soldier isn't specified, it could be any kind. I'm going to guess that 70%-90% of soldiers who have killed, haven't done so for a good cause, more likely ones such as conquest, money, misunderstandings, family feuds, ext.
     
  17. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,117
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Apparently.

    The bolded part is important here. You admit those who carry out immoral orders by their governments exist. So soldiers are not moral by default.

    Some of those even make immoral actions precisely because they think they serve their country and its society.
     
  18. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Correct. Soldiers can commit immoral acts, whether it's slaughtering innocents to prop up a tyrannical government, or refusing to kill those who do so.
     
  19. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Short of Wellington and Napoleon, no soldier starts a war. Politicians start wars. Soldiers have to fight them
     
  20. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,013
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    While I respect your opinion I cannot come around to believing it.

    I do not thinking being wiling to kill or die for an ideal is a noble pursuit. I believe finding more intelligent means than killing or dying to achieve an aim is far nobler.

    This will offend some but from reading history & all the stupid & blood wars humanity has fought from our earliest days to the 21st century I can't help but think that wars may be an evolutionary method of eliminating the genes of those stupid enough to fight in them. The courage to defend yourself against an enemy who threatens your village or family is different but it hasn't come to that in America... well, ever (even the Revolutionary war wasn't about pure survival).

    As I said in another thread I don't think violence is necessary ignoble but war strikes me as especially primitive.

    I remember a Michael Moore segment where Moore harassed Republican senators who supported the war asking if their children were enlisted to fight. Needless to say none of them were too happy to talk to Mr. Moore. Is it really noble to fight for these guys?
     

Share This Page