LogFAQs > #932339189

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Moral Dilemma: You're a soldier and you're ordered to kill unarmed civilians.
Izrael 01/01/20 7:32:15 PM #65:	It really depends on the situation. There is a distinct possibility of that "unarmed, fleeing civilian" grouping up with a militia, terrorist group, or gang and returning to massacre your squad. And let's not forget that in wars, even children can be used as soldiers and spies. It's also not uncommon for terrorist groups to utilize civilian centers, hospitals, or schools even, as a front or a shield, because they know that if the opposition makes any moves against those places, they'll immediately face heavy criticisms from human rights groups and other governments. Now hypothetically, suppose a well known terrorist, war criminal barricades himself in a house in a suburban area. The area is inaccessible to vehicles, squads, drones, and snipers. Our only option is to bomb the place. So should we bomb a populated suburb, because a vicious war criminal is hiding in one of the homes, or should we just wait till he (hopefully) decides to leave? There are families living in that suburb, should they die because of one person's evil behavior? Of course not. But from that home where he's hiding, the criminal could get in touch with his fellow terrorist, and order a gas attack, a raid, or a bombing, thus resulting in a number of deaths that some might consider preventable, if they had just bombed that suburb. (I believe a real life scenario similar to this played out in Philadelphia, in the mid 80's. The apartment block that a number of MOVE activist were hiding out in, was fire bombed by the police department) I went on a bit of a ramble there, but discussions like this are always fascinating. I once read about a social psychological study, where a group of students were presented with a simulated torture session, to see how far they were willing to follow orders, and the results were...Concerning. I believe it was called the Milgram experiment. I think it would be interesting to redo it today and see if the responses are any different. I think the ethics of war are so much more complicated than most people assume. ...But anyway, if it's a case like Kent State, then the obvious answer is no. --- Hammer main - Drow, Rogue - Gaige - Nyx. <cite>Izrael posted [p:932339189] in Moral Dile... [t:78297640]...</cite> <quote>It really depends on the situation. There is a distinct possibility of that "unarmed, fleeing civilian" grouping up with a militia, terrorist group, or gang and returning to massacre your squad. And let's not forget that in wars, even children can be used as soldiers and spies. It's also not uncommon for terrorist groups to utilize civilian centers, hospitals, or schools even, as a front or a shield, because they know that if the opposition makes any moves against those places, they'll immediately face heavy criticisms from human rights groups and other governments. Now hypothetically, suppose a well known terrorist, war criminal barricades himself in a house in a suburban area. The area is inaccessible to vehicles, squads, drones, and snipers. Our only option is to bomb the place. So should we bomb a populated suburb, because a vicious war criminal is hiding in one of the homes, or should we just wait till he (hopefully) decides to leave? There are families living in that suburb, should they die because of one person's evil behavior? Of course not. But from that home where he's hiding, the criminal could get in touch with his fellow terrorist, and order a gas attack, a raid, or a bombing, thus resulting in a number of deaths that some might consider preventable, if they had just bombed that suburb. (I believe a real life scenario similar to this played out in Philadelphia, in the mid 80's. The apartment block that a number of MOVE activist were hiding out in, was fire bombed by the police department) I went on a bit of a ramble there, but discussions like this are always fascinating. I once read about a social psychological study, where a group of students were presented with a simulated torture session, to see how far they were willing to follow orders, and the results were...Concerning. I believe it was called the Milgram experiment. I think it would be interesting to redo it today and see if the responses are any different. I think the ethics of war are so much more complicated than most people assume. ...But anyway, if it's a case like Kent State, then the obvious answer is no. --- Hammer main - Drow, Rogue - Gaige - Nyx.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1