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. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,202
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    I'm talking in general. The act of becoming a solider vs. a porn star. Knowing what risks you face in either profession & what type of person you may become as a result of your initial choice.
     
  2. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/ca...+accolades+well+done+Libya/5738769/story.html

    No, charging at pro-Gaddafi supporters who are propping up a regime that began slaughtering innocents, or supporters who fired on the peaceful protesters themselves, while risking own life on the line, is not moral or noble at all...
     
  3. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    You're missing the point. If it is wrong for Gaddafi supporters to kill and slaughter, it is wrong for you to do so as well. Otherwise the whole world is entangled in a game of "well I'm in the right" mindset. How many times did these "charging soldiers" attempt to settle the issue peacefully? How many of them attempted to discuss and express their issues with Gaddafi before resulting to violence?
     
  4. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    This is an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint.

    Evil soldiers slaughter innocent protesters. We kill evil soldiers. Hey, we both did "killing", therefore we're both the same, right?

    And good luck with using diplomacy on Gaddafi. Or any other like-minded dictator. (I may need to remind you that we did try that)
     
  5. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,202
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    By that same logic you could say, "Killing that guy who was friends with that other guy who killed a dude is noble". Did the men slaughtered kill innocents themselves? How do you know it's not propaganda? Have the rebels not also killed innocents, raped some women, started trouble?

    Their side is saying the exact same thing about us. "Look at those filthy Americans coming into our country & killing people, those Americans that are responsible for thousands upon thousands of civilian causalities in Iraq.". Propaganda to justify killing (especially invasion) is not particularly inspiring to me.
     
  6. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Not really. These soldiers are affiliated with the regime. Whether forced through conscription, or believe in their cause, they are on the wrong allegiance unfortunately.

    If your friends start killing babies, then don't expect to be shown any leniency for hanging around them while all of you have guns.

    A rebellion is a complicated situation. You will have rebels who engage in heinous acts, yes. But the end goal is peace, stability, and democracy. It's all for the greater good (however cliched that sounds).

    Why does this matter? Everyone keeps bringing this up.

    The United States tells its soldiers that they are fighting for a righteous cause, and are doing good.
    Saddam Hussein tells his soldiers that they are fighting for a righteous cause, and are doing good.

    Therefore they are both exactly the same, durrr.

    (Hint: the fact that the enemy may use propaganda on its populace in the same way we do is not representative of any meaningful similarity)
     
  7. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,202
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Right because their propaganda is wrong & ours is right. Therefore any collateral damage caused by American soldiers is for the greater good (kind of like the greater good of arming the Taliban so they could fight the evil commies, right?) & any collateral damage caused by other soldiers is an evil act. Gotcha.
     
  8. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    So then... I think I've figured out how to become a genocidal dictator.

    Just tell my soldiers that they are good and righteous in resisting foreign invasions, or continuing to cleanse the ethnicities I don't like.

    In case the U.S. knocks on my doorstep, I can just say "but I tell the same propaganda to my people as the U.S. does... how can you tell who is right?"

    Brilliant.
     
  9. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    You're using an overly subjective and relative term such as "evil" while trying to create a moral argument. Though I agree the Gaddafi soldiers lack many moral virtues (i.e., I think they're "evil" as well), if you view killing as morally reprehensible, and your basis for attacking and killing Gaddafi is his lethal actions, then how can your morals be consistent? If your morals aren't consistent, then based upon your logic and application of morality, a Gaddafi supporter would be completely justified in killing you. To him, you're "evil".

    Diplomacy in the political sense consists of mere threats and empty persuasion. Diplomacy often takes the form of a type of violence or aggression, aka passive aggression.

    As far as attempting to use peaceful persuasion and tactics on Gaddafi, I don't know of anyone in America that did. Libyans attempted to an extent.
     
  10. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Here's where we don't understand each other. I don't view merely "killing" as morally reprehensible. Killing can be justified.

    Killing peaceful protesters at a demonstration against a corrupt and undemocratic government is wrong. Killing the soldiers who are attempting to do so is right.

    Like I said, it's not a simple matter of "kill" has the same weight and effect in all circumstances.
     
  11. Akkon888

    Akkon888 한국 사람

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    서울
    This argument does not work. You first state that "killing the soldiers who are attempting to [kill peaceful protesters] is right" and then state that it's all for the "greater good". By definition, something that can be defined as a "greater good" must have both a good and bad side to it. Are you saying that killing is wrong in every case?

    However, the reason why I do believe that the majority of soldiers are immoral in performing their profession, is because they have lost sight of the "greater good".

    Are you saying that the enigmatic propaganda laid out by [a government] is the basis of morality in a soldier? If it is, then your basic premise is that war is moral--because either one or both sides wish a 'greater good'. Killing is wrong, but the 'greater good' makes up for it. The 'greater good' is instilled in us by the government, as you state.

    Does this mean that the observer must note the 'greater good' as defined by the government? In Iraq, American government claimed to pin Al Qaeda and eliminate 'weapons of mass destruction'. Do I have to think that this is valued as 'moral'? No. Is it morally justified? Well, that is the premise for this huge debate we are undergoing right here. And, if it is not morally justified, then the soldiers who commit the killings are therefore immoral. As you stated:

    This essentially backs my point in that we have to define what 'moral' means. The definition is different for each person.

    Anyway, my two cents for the day.
     
  12. MantaRevan

    MantaRevan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,537
    Who is judging evil? You? They think you are the evil ones. You think they are the evil ones. When they kill you, they think they are killing someone evil. To you, this is malevolence. To them, it is heroism. And vice versa.
     
  13. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,329
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    What is this supposed to mean? Are you being sarcastic?

    I find your self-righteous tone in this thread amusing. But I guess the thread is a trap for self-righteous people who think they know, in their distinctly black-and-white world views, what is right and wrong.
     
  14. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,102
    Location:
    Kael's head
    And I would very much disagree with that. Respect ought instead be given for the discernment to know what causes are or are not worth the sacrifice. Sacrifice that makes everyone worse off is just waste.
     
  15. NiRv4n4

    NiRv4n4 King

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    USA
    One contributes to upholding a certain society's values and freedoms (since we're talking about first world countries, this is a good thing).

    The other contributes mediocre entertainment that has no real value in society.

    I think it is self explanatory; I hope most people voted porn star as a farce, it's because of soldiers, not porn stars, that you are able to spend hours on the internet and enjoying yourself as opposed to scavenging for food.

    Your basically implying that there is no universal morality, so therefore an answer this question is meaningless, being entirely subjective and not based upon fact.
     
  16. wilycoyote

    wilycoyote King

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a porn star (morally at least, I would never date one), but being a soldier probably requires altruistic desires. Thus, I voted soldier. Of course, there are people that become soldiers just to kill people and in that case an average porn star would be my vote.
     
  17. Akkon888

    Akkon888 한국 사람

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    서울
    There is a universal morality, but human nature is so tainted by emotion, and propaganda, and the environment, that it never surfaces in a true form. As an extreme example, if a country were to advertise and propagate rape (which is completely immoral, IMO) as something of righteousness and morality--there would be an increase in rape in that country. We see this more realistically with Hitler, for example; Jews were killed, but it appeared 'moral' because the propaganda in that region aroused anger towards them, a feeling of sanctity after killing the 'scourge'. (These are only examples. I do not, in any way, condone Hitler's actions, nor do I condone rape.)

    People are so full of ardor at any given point towards any given event--this effectively biases the universal morality. This is why each person has different standards. We all know that killing is evil in itself. Ah, 9/11. "Those 'Muslim scumbags' need to be taught a lesson". All of a sudden, killing is totally justifiable! Except it isn't. It is only justifiable to the people affected by the incident in any way.

    So, in essence, you are right and wrong. Congratulations!
     
  18. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,287
    Location:
    Columbus
    So if we extrapolate the U.S./Saddam examples a little bit...

    Adolf Hitler tells his soldiers they are fighting for a righteous cause, eliminating inferior races, religions, and ethnicities, and they are doing good.
    Winston Churchill tells his soldiers they are fighting for a righteous cause, defending their homeland and those of others against a leader who seeks to exterminate some of them and at essentially enslave others.

    Now, they might not be quite so explicit in saying "We are evil!" or "We are good!", but the ideology is no secret. Would we say that Nazi soldiers, who doubtlessly were aware of Hitler's philosophy, were equally as good as British soldiers seeking to defend their island and overseas interests?

    Yes, a slightly extreme example, but glancing at this thread it seems like the best way to show that not all soldiers are perfectly equal and evil mass murderers. Was the British bombing of German cities and railroads ideal? Of course not. Was it overzealous at times? Yes. Were there atrocities committed by British soldiers? Undoubtedly. But would the world have been better off had none of it been done, if Britain had not done all it could to defeat Germany? Considering the alternative, I'm pretty sure very few people would say yes.

    So, while there will always be dispicable individual soldiers, and they certainly can fight for very evil causes, I do not think they can be universally grouped so negatively as some would. I'm also of the opinion that most first-world soldiers today do not have an especially evil agenda, and while I disagree with some of America's recent wars (Iraq in particular), I don't think they can be compared to the agendas of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, or Pol Pot, to name a few. And yes, there are some soldiers who disgrace their profession, but there are also reprehensible bankers, assistant football coaches, policemen, and factory workers, too.

    Now I'll go back to my regular fairly anti-military position...

    British soldiers chosen as a good example, not as the only Allied soldiers.
     
  19. NetGear

    NetGear King

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    729
    all of them. its true you get more autonomy if you're a officer or in much hardcore unit, but ultimately you're still in the military and subject to the paranoid chain.
     
  20. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,876
    "From our earliest days" wars usually included, in some degree or other, repressions and looting of the civilian population - from Caesar in Gaul to Crusaders in Jerusalem, to Ottomans in Constantinople, to the Second World War. There are civilian causalities in USA's wars in Iraq and intervention in Libya.

    And I bet that quite a lot of soldiers (before the spread of nationalism, especially) were pragmatic mercenaries that considered their pay and the chance of getting loot an acceptable compensation for their increased chance of death.

    I am not a Communist. I am a Russian Nationalist. These are different, though they may overlap. I consider both 1917 and 1991 to be the work of the Catholic-Judeo Masonic Octopus, which always plots against a strong Russia. Jeez, why you people can't understand my patriotic position?!
     

Share This Page