Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 18, 2011.
In war, all roads lead to hell.
edit: ^ Or profit.
These disingenuous analogies aren't convincing at all, fyi. You're making several ridiculous assumptions:
That America engages in these "interventions" to serve anyone's interests but its own.
That the only people killed are the "bad guys".
That things would have been worse off without the "intervention".
That these "interventions" are inherently practical and never result in too much collateral damage.
All of which are demonstrably false.
People state the military is necessary for freedom.
Here's a question, however. How often do our soldiers actually fight for our freedom, rather than going overseas and intervening in other nations' disputes, or in general being unprovoked?
Protecting against invaders? Most certainly, the military is useful in that regard, but that doesn't mean you go out and station troops all over the globe like a chess board. It means you keep them at home, as a metaphorical "Keep out" sign to anybody who would otherwise ponder invasion.
Plus, I'll repeat, it completely ignores the different motives people have for enlisting.
Here's an experiment: Get rid of all soldiers' paychecks. Let's see how many will stay then. Those who do stay are there to protect their nation. The huge numbers that desert, on the other hand, were only there for some benefit.
That's not to disparage those who have died in combat, of course, and their sacrifice is very noble, as they put their life on the line. But we should at least elevate the police and firefighters to their level since they risk their lives all the time as well.
Do I respect those who have the courage to enlist? Of course I do. But I won't kid myself into thinking that everything they're asked to do is protecting our freedom. They are young people, often thrown into the jaws of death, to serve whatever purpose the government has for them. Rarely is the purpose altruistic, of course, so the gov't is quick to peddle it as protecting freedoms.
You don't need a huge army to protect freedoms though; all you need is a few nukes to use against conventional foes, and a vigilant police force to take care of crimals and unconventional foes.
willing to die isnt really the issue, but does being willing to kill deserve respect regardless of the politics involved?
does being willing to kill ever deserve respect?
At least the porn star doesn't exist for killing.
It's you who started to judge the profession of soldiers by narrowing down the perspective to American soldiers alone. I don't even want to make an argument about the morality of soldiers of a democratic country vs. soldiers of a dictatorship (although we seem to have different opinions there, it's really not relevant). Point is, soldiers that not only kill as part of their profession, but also support an immoral regime in the process exist. I don't see for which reason this shouldn't reflect on the morality of the profession of soldiers as a whole.
I'm not convinced that a job can be inherently righteous when put without context. Only a person can be righteous, and while people with varying levels of righteousness may gravitate towards specific professions, no job is inherently more or less righteous than any other. The people doing them can be, but the jobs themselves are morally neutral.
One brings pleasure and (rarely) hurts anybody.
The other always brings pain and death, sometimes for justifiable reasons, but not most of the time.
Soldiers are morally ambigious because there is rarely certainty that a given war or engagement is justified, and the cost is rather high if it isn't. Porn starts are morally ambigious because a society with a large adult entertainment industry may be inferior to one with a smaller one by some metrics, and being a porn star contributes to that industry.
To me a porn star is a good deal less morally ambigious.
That summarizes what I said.
A soldier provides security and achieves national aims. A porn star merely provides entertainment, at best. I guess if you hate the nation, a porn star might seem more moral.
Being a soldier for an immoral nation would probably be immoral in itself, but that was not what was asked.
So what do you think was asked, then? Whether it's moral to be a soldier for a 'moral nation'?
if somebody's trying to kill you, would you want the porn star or the soldier risking their life to save you?
If either stepped in and saved your life, would you respect them for that?
What was asked, Aelf, was clearly what is the more moral occupation. Unfortunately, as asked, the question ignores key circumstances, Aelf.
Why did you put 'moral nation' in parentheses?
Wait, what's your definition of morals? That's utilitarianism at best.
The question is general and hence a general answer seems to be called for. And since nations, even the more 'moral' ones, have engaged in military acts that are immoral, we have to take into account the fact that many soldiers have been complicit in and party to immoral acts.
So it seems rather the case that you're interested in ignoring the question as it is asked.
You've pinpointed a single instance in which a soldier would be almost 100% certainly useful to me. The soldier in this case would be acting in my self-defense.
Soldiers, however, in real life, are carrying out orders from people not in any immediate danger. They are tools used by politicians and men of power.
I'm a nice guy, I probably would for a bit. Wouldn't change my opinion that soldiers do not possess a moral profession.
The problem is that it is a poor hypothetical to begin with. How many nations use their soldiers entirely for defense purposes?
you've blamed the solder for the politician
Volunteering for service is like agreeing to become a pawn. It's their own fault, not the politician's. Conscription is a different story.
Separate names with a comma.