Moral Conundrums

[NattyBumppo]

I maintain my argument (supported by UCMJ and Rules of Engagement) that the soldier is NOT the decision maker

No, typically the ROE's control. But in the field, the application of the ROE's is made by the boots on the ground.

 

[RyanBlack]

higher purpose" if fraught with deception and flawed logic and simply irrational actions--therefore it CAN NOT be justified to kill one to save 100 because it is an irrational and untrue supposition[/B[COLOR="Blue[B]"]].

..is you..and intellectual thinking..nice to set in comfort. [/COLOR]

not sure what you mean here?

 

[LustfulOne50]

I maintain my argument (supported by UCMJ and Rules of Engagement) that the soldier is NOT the decision maker

You can throw the UMCJ in the trash can...you need to study Vietnam closely which was a fine example of Rules of engagement...but again we are careening off the tracks...

Understand the deference between a Conflict and a declared War.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, typically the ROE's control. But in the field, the application of the ROE's is made by the boots on the ground.

The ROE's are written---the "boots on the ground" are "following orders" as guided by officers.

They are NOT decision makers--the decisions have been made "when to kill, when not to kill"

Deviation from those rules of engagement result in battlefield chaos---or would you hold the position that the decisions soldiers make are all justified by the results?

Is the torture of an enemy combatant for the purpose of gaining information which will prevent future deaths an acceptable practice? Does it not violate the rules of engagement, the rule of law and our principles as "moral people" if we engage in this practice and argue "the ends justifies the means"? or that we are "saving lives" by doing so.

 

[RyanBlack]

You can throw the UMCJ in the trash can...you need to study Vietnam closely which was a fine example of Rules of engagement...but again we are careening off the tracks...

Understand the deference between a Conflict and a declared War.

You hold the position that soldiers ought to be able to deviate from the UCMJ and the ROE as they see fit? any soldier?? in any circumstance???

 

[RyanBlack]

You can throw the UMCJ in the trash can...you need to study Vietnam closely which was a fine example of Rules of engagement...but again we are careening off the tracks...

Understand the deference between a Conflict and a declared War.

I may be incorrect, but I believe WW2 was the last declared war. If I am wrong please correct me.

How many soldiers who wore the uniform of the United States are currently dead---since the end of that war--who were killed by enemy combatants?

It seems inconsequential to differentiate between the two if the results are the same--I dont mean to sound condescending--that is not my intent, I simply do not grasp the point you are trying to make.

killing one to save many with out case by case details and an abundant level of evidence and rational and logical prediction on the resulting consequences is simply not a valid decision

 

[NattyBumppo]

The ROE's are written---the "boots on the ground" are "following orders" as guided by officers.

They are NOT decision makers--the decisions have been made "when to kill, when not to kill"

Deviation from those rules of engagement result in battlefield chaos---or would you hold the position that the decisions soldiers make are all justified by the results?

Is the torture of an enemy combatant for the purpose of gaining information which will prevent future deaths an acceptable practice? Does it not violate the rules of engagement, the rule of law and our principles as "moral people" if we engage in this practice and argue "the ends justifies the means"? or that we are "saving lives" by doing so.

Sure, go for the extreme example. Why don't you go for the more common yet much more complex example that happens day after day:

A person in civilian clothing approaches troops carrying something. The person either ignores warnings or disregards them, still approaching them. The troops can't make out whether it's a simple, non-lethal item or a grenade or other weapon. The person is now within range to kill or injure fellow soldiers.

The ROE's say that troops may fire when they reasonably believe themselves to be in danger. Since other incidents have occurred where troops who did not fire on people were killed or injured by persons they allowed to get too close, is it ok, under the ROE's and the troops' personal experiences, for them to kill this person?

Scenarios like this present themselves day after day in Afghanistan. Don't even try to suggest that the troops on the ground don't have to make this decision, that the vague ROE's that were drawn up by some REMF who hasn't seen the frontline in heaven knows how long are going to control.

Sorry, but that's unrealistic.

 

[LustfulOne50]

I may be incorrect, but I believe WW2 was the last declared war. If I am wrong please correct me.

How many soldiers who wore the uniform of the United States are currently dead---since the end of that war--who were killed by enemy combatants?

It seems inconsequential to differentiate between the two if the results are the same--I dont mean to sound condescending--that is not my intent, I simply do not grasp the point you are trying to make.

killing one to save many with out case by case details and an abundant level of evidence and rational and logical prediction on the resulting consequences is simply not a valid decision

Try WAR in Iraq..that was declared..by our Congress given faulty information...Now Afghanistan..I am still wondering at what point it was declared a war...or it still a conflict and we throw the word war in there to confuse and waste more money.

 

[RyanBlack]

Sure, go for the extreme example. Why don't you go for the more common yet much more complex example that happens day after day:

A person in civilian clothing approaches troops carrying something. The person either ignores warnings or disregards them, still approaching them. The troops can't make out whether it's a simple, non-lethal item or a grenade or other weapon. The person is now within range to kill or injure fellow soldiers.

The ROE's say that troops may fire when they reasonably believe themselves to be in danger. Since other incidents have occurred where troops who did not fire on people were killed or injured by persons they allowed to get too close, is it ok, under the ROE's and the troops' personal experiences, for them to kill this person?

Scenarios like this present themselves day after day in Afghanistan. Don't even try to suggest that the troops on the ground don't have to make this decision, that the vague ROE's that were drawn up by some REMF who hasn't seen the frontline in heaven knows how long are going to control.

Sorry, but that's unrealistic.

I dont find your scenario in conflict with my position at all. In fact I believe it validates it. You state "The ROE's say that troops may fire when they reasonably believe themselves to be in danger. Since other incidents have occurred where troops who did not fire on people were killed or injured by persons they allowed to get too close" the ROE is the test for the action--and the actions taken by the soldiers are consistant with the decision made in the ROE's to take action and even kill -- the soldiers are not choosing to kill, they are simply executing orders they have been given and following proceedures. They are also following orders and proceedures set in the ROE when they do not fire upon unarmed civilians.

Your characterization of the ROE's as vague and as having been written by "soem REMF who hasnt seen the frontline" . . . . etc is assuming facts not in evidence counselor--unless you care to present aforementioned ROE's and an throrough analysis of them by an expert judge of such things (I suspect the expert judge would by one of those REMF's who hasnt seen the front line



The ROE's say that troops may fire when they reasonably believe themselves to be in danger. Since other incidents have occurred where troops who did not fire on people were killed or injured by persons they allowed to get too close, is it ok, under the ROE's and the troops' personal experiences, for them to kill this person? if your question is regarding the morality of following those orders, or the morality of the orders themselves---I would answer the soldiers are "moral" in either circumstance as they are consistant with their oath and their duty---it is the authors of the policy and the ROE's who are accountable for the morality of the decision, not the soldiers who are following lawful orders.

 

[RyanBlack]

Try WAR in Iraq..that was declared..by our Congress given faulty information

did congress "declare war" in iraq? or did they authorize the use fo force sanctioned by UN resolution. I believe there was no "Declaration of WAR" as defined constitutionally -- which I believe would make it a "conflict" or "military action" Though I still do not understand the point of differentiating them.

 

[NattyBumppo]

I dont find your scenario in conflict with my position at all. In fact I believe it validates it. You state "The ROE's say that troops may fire when they reasonably believe themselves to be in danger. Since other incidents have occurred where troops who did not fire on people were killed or injured by persons they allowed to get too close" the ROE is the test for the action--and the actions taken by the soldiers are consistant with the decision made in the ROE's to take action and even kill -- the soldiers are not choosing to kill, they are simply executing orders they have been given and following proceedures. They are also following orders and proceedures set in the ROE when they do not fire upon unarmed civilians.

Your characterization of the ROE's as vague and as having been written by "soem REMF who hasnt seen the frontline" . . . . etc is assuming facts not in evidence counselor--unless you care to present aforementioned ROE's and an throrough analysis of them by an expert judge of such things (I suspect the expert judge would by one of those REMF's who hasnt seen the front line

Well, the incident in Haditha brought the ROE's vagueness into question, now didn't they? In that case, the ROE's were severely criticized in the investigation that followed.

Here's a brief discussion. There are others:

Rules of Engagement Discussion

The fact of the matter is the soldiers have to apply the ROE's to the best of their ability, sometimes in scant seconds, in the process making life and death decisions. Sure, they've had some schooling about the ROE's, but it's not like they have time to sit behind a wall, pull out the ROE's and a slide rule and determine whether they can fire at a target. Especially where an unconventional war is being fought, legal niceties go by the wayside.

 

[LustfulOne50]

did congress "declare war" in iraq? or did they authorize the use fo force sanctioned by UN resolution. I believe there was no "Declaration of WAR" as defined constitutionally -- which I believe would make it a "conflict" or "military action" Though I still do not understand the point of differentiating them.

Yeppy did declare it...this way we are aggressor and choice of weapons are ours and tactics to.

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, the incident in Haditha brought the ROE's vagueness into question, now didn't they? In that case, the ROE's were severely criticized in the investigation that followed.

Here's a brief discussion. There are others:

Rules of Engagement Discussion

The fact of the matter is the soldiers have to apply the ROE's to the best of their ability, sometimes in scant seconds, in the process making life and death decisions. Sure, they've had some schooling about the ROE's, but it's not like they have time to sit behind a wall, pull out the ROE's and a slide rule and determine whether they can fire at a target. Especially where an unconventional war is being fought, legal niceties go by the wayside.

IM confused by what seems to be your use of the ROE's to justify action, and at the next paragraph the ROE's are presented and insufficient?

My position, if I have not made it clear is that soldiers are acting on the decisions of others--interpreting and applying those rules to the best of their ability in battlefield situations. They are not disposing of the rules to act in a manner which they decide is more "moral" That would be inconsistand with their oath and their duty. They are NOT the arbitors of right and wrong on the battlefield--they are executing orders given them by command authority which is civilian--and that is where the responsibility for the "morality" of the decisions lies.

The underlying assumption is of course that the soldiers in question are obeying lawful orders.

Yeppy did declare it...this way we are aggressor and choice of weapons are ours and tactics to.

Im sorry LO, I can not find data to validate that---I have searched, and I see arguments for and against it, but I can not find the record -- I do see where similar to President Madison's request to declare war on Algiers, congress declined to authorize war, rather instead they authorized a limited and sanctioned conflict supporting UN resolutions.--If you have more data available, I would appreciate you sharing it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, the incident in Haditha brought the ROE's vagueness into question, now didn't they? In that case, the ROE's were severely criticized in the investigation that followed.

Here's a brief discussion. There are others:

Rules of Engagement Discussion

The fact of the matter is the soldiers have to apply the ROE's to the best of their ability, sometimes in scant seconds, in the process making life and death decisions. Sure, they've had some schooling about the ROE's, but it's not like they have time to sit behind a wall, pull out the ROE's and a slide rule and determine whether they can fire at a target. Especially where an unconventional war is being fought, legal niceties go by the wayside.

The soldiers on the ground in the alleyways do not have that responsibility, however that is EXACTLY what goes on in the CAOC where a lawyer sits right behind the MCC.

 

[RyanBlack]

WAR is an extremely complex scenario to use for this argument. Perhaps we could use something simpler though less dramatic.

Euthanizing an individual with a mental disability would provide an opportunity to harvest organs and save lives.

this to me seems more consistant with the question posed by the OP.

The taking of one life to save other lives--while not 100 lives, certainly several--heart, lungs, kindeys, liver etc . . .

This is the position of many bio ethicists and seems less complex a model to use than war where the variables, and politics are so far reaching as to be diluting and distracting from the original discussion.

 

[DaemonOfSin]

If you were put in a position to kill one person in order to save the lives of one hundred other people, could you kill?

Depends do I get to pick who? If someone is attacking people and I am in a position to defend them I probably would.

Far as War goes I think its useless. But then again I am not a big military fan, but there are reasons for that.

 

[IhateClowns]

I wasn't sure what direction this thread would go in, but I am happy with the responses. I find it very interesting the interpretation that each and everyone had on the question. It went from yes to save my family to a 3 page dialogue on war. Even though the question never stated who the 100 people are/were. Very interesting to me.

 

[RyanBlack]

I wasn't sure what direction this thread would go in, but I am happy with the responses. I find it very interesting the interpretation that each and everyone had on the question. It went from yes to save my family to a 3 page dialogue on war. Even though the question never stated who the 100 people are/were. Very interesting to me.

it was for that exact reason for my answer being and emphatic NO

i would not kill one person to save another---even if it was my child (defend my child--certainly I would)
clown--I like you you are a good guy--funny interesting and you write good stuff---but if my child needed a heart transplant to live I would not, repeat NOT murder you to make that available--even if I wanted to.

Life has intrinsic value--it is subjective of course, but since we can assign no objective value to a human life that can be place in a mathematical equation do decide the economies of life and death, the answer must be no.

 

[IhateClowns]

Well since this is off to a rollicking start I figure let us move on to the next question. Thanks again to everyone who is posting in here.

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

 

[RyanBlack]

Well since this is off to a rollicking start I figure let us move on to the next question. Thanks again to everyone who is posting in here.

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

The method of moral arguments of virtually all sorts is as follows:

1. All actions of kind A are wrong unless there are compelling special circumstances.2. Someone doing x is an action of kind K leading to action A.
3. There are no compelling special circumstances associated with S’s doing x.
4. Doing x is wrong.

Note that this argument is logicallyvalid. Of course, there’s some obscurity in what counts as “compelling special circumstances” and can be defined into obsurity.

In general, simple moral arguments will not be very strong when applied to controversial or hard cases involving life and death. The positions are personal as opposed to global or generalized.

This is because those cases involve competing factors and indefinable values objectively which are satisfactory to all.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good heated and intellectual debate with peers as much as the next egghead, I simply know in advance that simple moral arguments are difficult to defend due to the complexity of morality.

 

[LustfulOne50]

Well since this is off to a rollicking start I figure let us move on to the next question. Thanks again to everyone who is posting in here.

#2 Developers want to buy your home and demolish it in order to build a research center in which animal experiments will be conducted. They offer you double the market value, would you sell?

No answer for this one I would never but a stand alone residents again...LOL to much money incurred...Though if the rest of the Condo association gives in who wants to be high and dry ...LOL might as well buy a stand alone....NOT!!

 

[IhateClowns]

The method of moral arguments of virtually all sorts is as follows:

1. All actions of kind A are wrong unless there are compelling special circumstances.2. Someone doing x is an action of kind K leading to action A.
3. There are no compelling special circumstances associated with S’s doing x.
4. Doing x is wrong.

Note that this argument is logicallyvalid. Of course, there’s some obscurity in what counts as “compelling special circumstances” and can be defined into obsurity.

In general, simple moral arguments will not be very strong when applied to controversial or hard cases involving life and death. The positions are personal as opposed to global or generalized.

This is because those cases involve competing factors and indefinable values objectively which are satisfactory to all.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good heated and intellectual debate with peers as much as the next egghead, I simply know in advance that simple moral arguments are difficult to defend due to the complexity of morality.

So was that a yes?

 

[RyanBlack]

So was that a yes?

LOL you are so cute

you just sit there and look pretty sugar pants and leave the heavy thinkin to us

and arent you going to award points or something to participants so we can decide who won the debate?

http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml here is a good source to use for awarding points or deducting them for weak or flawed arguments

 

[IhateClowns]

LOL you are so cute

you just sit there and look pretty sugar pants and leave the heavy thinkin to us

and arent you going to award points or something to participants so we can decide who won the debate?

http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml here is a good source to use for awarding points or deducting them for weak or flawed arguments

That's me. Throw the grenade into the group and watch everyone play hot potato. I didn't think it would inspire too many debates. I just wondered what people's thoughts were on the questions at hand

So as you are seeing my goal is to not have a run in my panty hose and keep my dress clean ans wrinkle free.

 

[RyanBlack]

That's me. Throw the grenade into the group and watch everyone play hot potato. I didn't think it would inspire too many debates. I just wondered what people's thoughts were on the questions at hand

So as you are seeing my goal is to not have a run in my panty hose and keep my dress clean ans wrinkle free.

you didnt think those types of questions would inspire debates???

you really are cute