Whose side is justified?

Who has the moral high ground?

  • Guy shot in the head

    Votes: 23 82.1%
  • Guy shot the chest

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28

SS-18 ICBM

Oscillator
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
15,292
Location
Here and there
20120702.gif

Spoiler :
20120702after.gif

I'm leaning with headshot dude. They were just trying to defend their own sphere of influence.
 
Neither side is justified.
 
I say they were both justified in that war kills people and they got the fruit of their labor.
 
A determination of justification cannot be established based upon the limited facts we are given. Justification of a combatant's activities can only come based on the circumstances of a particular battle. To the individual combatant, it doesn't matter whether the greater conflict is just or not; unless these chumps are heads of states or generals then they have no reason to justify the greater war they are involved in. Enlisted men are only responsible for their own actions. Unless there was some egregious violation of conduct, such as if one of the men was clearly a medic, then no justification is required from the combatant.

The unjustified action from this comic comes not from the principles involved but from the cartoonist himself. Presuming that an individual solider should answer for the greater policies of his nation is simply absurd and only serves to dumb down the question for the sake of a cheap laugh.
 
Needs more context.
 
A determination of justification cannot be established based upon the limited facts we are given. Justification of a combatant's activities can only come based on the circumstances of a particular battle. To the individual combatant, it doesn't matter whether the greater conflict is just or not; unless these chumps are heads of states or generals then they have no reason to justify the greater war they are involved in. Enlisted men are only responsible for their own actions. Unless there was some egregious violation of conduct, such as if one of the men was clearly a medic, then no justification is required from the combatant.

The unjustified action from this comic comes not from the principles involved but from the cartoonist himself. Presuming that an individual solider should answer for the greater policies of his nation is simply absurd and only serves to dumb down the question for the sake of a cheap laugh.

Enlisted men do have to justify their own act of enlisting though. This may be relatively easy in instances of conscription, but if the soldier volunteered while knowing an unjust war was already being waged then he is very much personally to blame.
 
It is true that enlisted men must justify their enlistment. However, such justifications can come from a variety of means. A volunteer may justify his service during a time of unjust war as his patriotic duty regardless of the circumstances of the war. People may differ on whether that is or is not sufficient justification for participation in an unjust war. Similarly, a man may have enlisted during a time of peace and then an unjust war breaks out at which point he must decide whether to go to war or remove himself by going AWOL or the like. Both of those options may have significant consequences.

Still, it plays to my initial statement that we do not have sufficient context to judge these men. Were they conscripted, did they volunteer, are they mercenaries? Did they join during peace or wartime? We simply don't have enough information to judge them.
 
Bald guy. His country was threatened.
And the Washington Consensus is nothing worth fighting for and belongs on the garbage heap of history.
 
Back
Top Bottom