Finally got a little free time to continue the off-topic discussion started in the other thread. Here is the original thread http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15533.aspx?PageIndex=1.
First I would like to discuss the notion that soldiers are murders. After that I would like to discuss the notion that there is little to no grey area when determining whether a killing is just or unjust and that there is no grey area when determining whether an unjust killing is murder or something else. Then finally, I would like to discuss whether the beliefs of those who do the killing are relevant when we assign blame for unjust killing. I hope I am not misrepresenting any views, if I have then it is that I have only misunderstood.
Killing is either just or unjust.
Not all unjust killing is murder.
Killing in war is either just or unjust.
Not all unjust killing in war is murder.
If soldiers are the ones doing the killing, then even those soldiers guilty of unjust killing are not necessarily murders.
Southern: After that I would like to discuss the notion that there is little to no grey area when determining whether a killing is just or unjust and that there is no grey area when determining whether an unjust killing is murder or something else.
After that I would like to discuss the notion that there is little to no grey area when determining whether a killing is just or unjust and that there is no grey area when determining whether an unjust killing is murder or something else.
What is your definition of murder? According to the official dictionary entry:
...the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
I don't think any libertarian would argue that all killing is "unjust". It certainly is just to kill another man threatening your life, killing for self-protection, with the caveat that you are not the aggressor. In Iraq, American troops are the aggressors, especially since they are not being coerced by the State to deploy—the current military is all-volunteer, and if you have a change of heart it's worth considering that I got around deploying and was never threatened with arrest or jail-time.
Then finally, I would like to discuss whether the beliefs of those who do the killing are relevant when we assign blame for unjust killing.
What do you mean by this?
So would you agree with the first section of my post?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: What is your definition of murder? According to the official dictionary entry: ...the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
The same.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:I don't think any libertarian would argue that all killing is "unjust". It certainly is just to kill another man threatening your life, killing for self-protection, with the caveat that you are not the aggressor.
There is a grey area. Someone corners you and initiates a fight. You decide you dont want to fight and shoot him. Seems like it is unjust. But what if the man a is 300lbs gorilla. Its very likely that a physical assault from him could be lethal force. So are you justified in shoot him? I dont know. Depends on the judge or jury.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:In Iraq, American troops are the aggressors, especially since they are not being coerced by the State to deploy—the current military is all-volunteer, and if you have a change of heart it's worth considering that I got around deploying and was never threatened with arrest or jail-time.
However that does not mean all killing they do is unjust. And from that not all unjust killng that they do is murder.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Then finally, I would like to discuss whether the beliefs of those who do the killing are relevant when we assign blame for unjust killing. What do you mean by this?
Basically this. Should we hold those who are ignorant of thier sin to the same standard as those who embrace it?
Southern: So would you agree with the first section of my post?
That not all killing in war is murder? Yes. Although, for aggressor states all soldiers on deployment intend to kill the enemy and so the action of killing another comes dangerously close to murder, if not murder outright. So, while not all killing in war is immoral or murder, for the aggressor army most killing can probably be categorized as murder.
This seems like one of those lifeboat situations, and I'm not sure that the situation in a war will be this cloudy except a very small proportion of the time.
Give me an example of a just killing, by part of an American soldier, in Iraq. American soldiers are on foreign, sovereign soil; they are the aggressors. They are the 300lb. bully of your previous example.
Premeditated versus accidental. What soldiers accidentally kill a foreign person? All soldiers become soldiers that they may have to kill, and they accept it.
I agree that unjustified killing is not necessarily murder. From what little I know from television unjustified killings fall within varied categories like "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", "manslaughter", "neglected homicide", "murder through depraved indifference" and possibly many others.I would be interested to see if we can determine into what category would a killing of an enemy soldier in combat fall into, when the said killing is done by someone on the side which is clearly the aggressor. Would it be one of the mentioned categories? An existing category that I omitted here? A totally new category all to itself?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Give me an example of a just killing, by part of an American soldier, in Iraq. American soldiers are on foreign, sovereign soil; they are the aggressors. They are the 300lb. bully of your previous example.
Maybe it would be better if we tried using less current and therefore more neutral, less emotionally charged examples. For example Soviet soldiers in 1980s Afghanistan or Portugese soldiers in 1970s Mozambique.
Then whatever we figure out using such examples we can later apply to the current ones.
Marko:I agree that unjustified killing is not necessarily murder. From what little I know from television unjustified killings fall within varied categories like "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", "manslaughter", "neglected homicide", "murder through depraved indifference" and possibly many others.I would be interested to see if we can determine into what category would a killing of an enemy soldier in combat fall into, when the said killing is done by someone on the side which is clearly the aggressor. Would it be one of the mentioned categories? An existing category that I omitted here? A totally new category all to itself?
And the reason for the different categories is because the circumstance surrounding the killing is different. So we assign different levels of blame due to the circumstances. I would argue that war is the most extreme circumstance anyone could find themselves.
I am not currently refering to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. I am talking about the millions of people who have killed in war under the banner of a state. v I would like to try and establish some common ground then examine the current conflicts.
I have gathered that many here believe that soldiers are nothing more than hired killers for the state. If so, is there anything immoral or unjust about on hired killer killing another hired killer? Is that murder? Along the same lines as, is there anything wrong with a thief stealing from another thief? Is that stealing?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Basically this. Should we hold those who are ignorant of thier sin to the same standard as those who embrace it? Premeditated versus accidental. What soldiers accidentally kill a foreign person? All soldiers become soldiers that they may have to kill, and they accept it.
I am not talking about premeditated vrs accidental. I am talking about those who believe that they are acting in self defense when in reality they are the aggressors. Do we treat them any differently from those who know and relish the idea of being the aggressor and kill because they desire to establish their dominance?
Southern: I would argue that war is the most extreme circumstance anyone could find themselves.
I would argue that war is the most extreme circumstance anyone could find themselves.
I agree. But the point is really to what an extent is the soldier responsible for being in these circumstances himself. If there was a soldier who joined only because his family was being held hostage and threatened with death by authorities and then fought on the aggressor side side solely as a matter of self-preservation then I think he would have to be cleared fully. But if there on the other hand was a soldier who joined the aggressor willingly and without being a victim of deception then it being a war is no mitigating circumstance for him at all. He can not hide behind the extreme circumstances of "kill or be killed". What crime is he guilty of? As what do we categorise the killing he does?
Once we have the verdict on both of these we know the verdict for others have to be in between the two extremes.
Southern: If so, is there anything immoral or unjust about on hired killer killing another hired killer?
If so, is there anything immoral or unjust about on hired killer killing another hired killer?
No. That would be violence between willing participants. A duel.
This indeed applies to many wars but only where neither side is a clear aggressor. For example the British and the Germans fighting in their African colonies during WWI, since neither had the right to any of that land in the first place.
Southern: I am not talking about premeditated vrs accidental. I am talking about those who believe that they are acting in self defense when in reality they are the aggressors. Do we treat them any differently from those who know and relish the idea of being the aggressor and kill because they desire to establish their dominance?
I think it depends on 'objective' circumstances. How easy is for this person to gain access to truthful information? And how good a reason he has to doubt the version they are being fed? For example someone in a totalitarian society would have little to no access to truthful information, but he would have good and obvious reason to doubt the version he was being told. Someone in a less controlled society would have much better avenues to pursue alternative, truthful information in, but seemingly less reason to need to.Also, how big are the holes in the official narrative? Is it possible to pick holes in it and question the morality of actions suggested by it without taking into account any special information, simply by examining it a little bit on your own and applying some common sense?I think that if someone were a victim of a very elaborate deception that would make it all but impossible for him to know the truth (totally controlled environment and what not), that then we would need to conclude that his crimes are not his own, but solely the responsibility of his deceivers. However I think such a scenario has to be the domain of science fiction.
I think in reality usually only a part of deception is of this type, and the other part is self-deception. As an extreme example lets take someone who has the ability to access truthful information, who has every reason to doubt everything his government says and whose government provides a rationale for war that is clearly lacking, jet still believes the war to be just. Such a person is not so much a victim of deception, as he is the victim of self-deception. I think his crime would be only slightly less than that of someone who relishes the thought of being an aggressor.
(I think this is a similar case to someone who was conscripted, but who would have volunteered anyway, had he not been conscripted. In that he was not really a victim of conscription. Just like the soldier in the above paragraph was not really a victim of deception.)
Marko:I agree. But the point is really to what an extent is the soldier responsible for being in these circumstances himself. If there was a soldier who joined only because his family was being held hostage and threatened with death by authorities and then fought on the aggressor side side solely as a matter of self-preservation then I think he would have to be cleared fully.
So we would agree that, in general, drafted soldiers would fall into this category and that we should be lenient in our judgments. Though we I think we would also agree that it is no excuse for blatant acts of violence against unarmed and non threatening innocents.
Marko:But if there on the other hand was a soldier who joined the aggressor willingly and without being a victim of deception then it being a war is no mitigating circumstance for him at all. He can not hide behind the extreme circumstances of "kill or be killed". What crime is he guilty of? As what do we categorise the killing he does?
I would agree for the most part. However this does raise another question. When war is instigated by those in power, it is coming regardless of whether it is just or unjust. If your state begins to loose and enemy soldiers are approaching your home, bringing death and destruction with them, should we treat those who pick up a gun and fight side by side with the aggressors the same? These people are defending their home, yet killing those who were aggressed against.
I would think those with no mitigating circumstances would be guilty of murder.
Marko: Southern: If so, is there anything immoral or unjust about on hired killer killing another hired killer? No. That would be violence between willing participants. A duel. This indeed applies to many wars but only where neither side is a clear aggressor. For example the British and the Germans fighting in their African colonies during WWI, since neither had the right to any of that land in the first place.
I agree up to point. However, no state has a legitimate claim to any land. So wouldn’t that mean that it is irrelevant as to where the fighting took place? As long as it is between the hired killers of two states (professional soldiers) then there is nothing immoral about killing an enemy soldier.
Marko:I think it depends on 'objective' circumstances. How easy is for this person to gain access to truthful information? And how good a reason he has to doubt the version they are being fed? For example someone in a totalitarian society would have little to no access to truthful information, but he would have good and obvious reason to doubt the version he was being told. Someone in a less controlled society would have much better avenues to pursue alternative, truthful information in, but seemingly less reason to need to.Also, how big are the holes in the official narrative? Is it possible to pick holes in it and question the morality of actions suggested by it without taking into account any special information, simply by examining it a little bit on your own and applying some common sense?
Definitely having access to the truth is important. And today there is no doubt that people have access to more information than they ever have in the past. This should mean that they are able to make better decisions. But the volume of information available has also created a problem. How do you sort through the vast amounts of contradictory information? In order to do so you must have a base to draw from. Most here have dedicated their free time to acquiring knowledge of history, philosophy, etc. The average person has dedicated their free time to football, celebrities, family, etc. They lack to knowledge to pick the false information from the truthful. Unfortunately, they rely on public opinion and those who are elected by public opinion. So do we treat these people the same as those who know the truth and create the lies?
Marko:I think that if someone were a victim of a very elaborate deception that would make it all but impossible for him to know the truth (totally controlled environment and what not), that then we would need to conclude that his crimes are not his own, but solely the responsibility of his deceivers. However I think such a scenario has to be the domain of science fiction.
In not sure that it has to be an elaborate deception where someones entire base of information is controlled. It may also be a problem of not just lack of information but also of an overload of information.
Marko:I think in reality usually only a part of deception is of this type, and the other part is self-deception. As an extreme example lets take someone who has the ability to access truthful information, who has every reason to doubt everything his government says and whose government provides a rationale for war that is clearly lacking, jet still believes the war to be just. Such a person is not so much a victim of deception, as he is the victim of self-deception. I think his crime would be only slightly less than that of someone who relishes the thought of being an aggressor.
I would agree that people will most definitely blind themselves at times. But we have to be careful I think. Sometimes things as so clear to us, that it is absolutely unbelievable that another can’t see it. But in many cases we are making assumptions that are not true. We assume that they are just as intelligent or have access to the same knowledge.
Marko:(I think this is a similar case to someone who was conscripted, but who would have volunteered anyway, had he not been conscripted. In that he was not really a victim of conscription. Just like the soldier in the above paragraph was not really a victim of deception.)
When assigning blame, how would we ever know?
Southern: So we would agree that, in general, drafted soldiers would fall into this category and that we should be lenient in our judgements.
So we would agree that, in general, drafted soldiers would fall into this category and that we should be lenient in our judgements.
No. There is a difference between someone whose family is threatened with death. And a regular conscript. Being conscripted takes away only a smaller part of the blame. The greater part remains.
A person has no obligation to become a martyr but in most circumstances deserting is not martyring yourself. It exacts a smaller price on the deserter than it would on the person he would kill in combat. If he does not desert then he must be determined not to take a life but to intentionally shoot wide regardless of the danger to himself.
In general I would caution against seeing a too wide gulf between conscripts and volunteers. Unless we are talking about virtual slave armies like that of 18th century Prussia, then every soldier is to some extent a volunteer.
Southern: When war is instigated by those in power, it is coming regardless of whether it is just or unjust. If your state begins to loose and enemy soldiers are approaching your home, bringing death and destruction with them, should we treat those who pick up a gun and fight side by side with the aggressors the same? These people are defending their home, yet killing those who were aggressed against.
When war is instigated by those in power, it is coming regardless of whether it is just or unjust. If your state begins to loose and enemy soldiers are approaching your home, bringing death and destruction with them, should we treat those who pick up a gun and fight side by side with the aggressors the same? These people are defending their home, yet killing those who were aggressed against.
This is well spotted. You are right, this is perhaps the most tragic thing about having a state. It places people between a hammer and an anvil. Such people have to be cleared. I liken this to defensive voting.
Southern: However, no state has a legitimate claim to any land. So wouldn’t that mean that it is irrelevant as to where the fighting took place? As long as it is between the hired killers of two states (professional soldiers) then there is nothing immoral about killing an enemy soldier.
However, no state has a legitimate claim to any land. So wouldn’t that mean that it is irrelevant as to where the fighting took place? As long as it is between the hired killers of two states (professional soldiers) then there is nothing immoral about killing an enemy soldier.
No. That would be sophistry. If the date is September 1st a German officer is not the equal of a Polish officer. The Polish officer is not a willing participant to the war. He has no choice but to defend his people.
Southern: The average person has dedicated their free time to football, celebrities, family, etc. They lack to knowledge to pick the false information from the truthful. Unfortunately, they rely on public opinion and those who are elected by public opinion. So do we treat these people the same as those who know the truth and create the lies?
The average person has dedicated their free time to football, celebrities, family, etc. They lack to knowledge to pick the false information from the truthful. Unfortunately, they rely on public opinion and those who are elected by public opinion. So do we treat these people the same as those who know the truth and create the lies?
We judge them the same as those who do not care whether their cause is just or not, for they obviously do not, but go to war blindly. They are the same as those who see through the lies but join the aggressor anyway because they have no philosophical qualms about committing aggression. The people in our example have qualms in theory, but not in practice.
Also, even if their initial self-delusion could be rationalised away, what then is to be said of them when they fail to desert even after a period of time served? Surely after some time spent in the actual war, all that they need to deduce that they are the aggressor they have available.
Southern:When assigning blame, how would we ever know?
Luckily we are not assigning blame to any actual people. We are assigning blame to theoretical people who are a construct of our imagination. So we are in the position to know.
Marko: No. There is a difference between someone whose family is threatened with death. And a regular conscript. Being conscripted takes away only a smaller part of the blame. The greater part remains. A person has no obligation to become a martyr but in most circumstances deserting is not martyring yourself. It exacts a smaller price on the deserter than it would on the person he would kill in combat. If he does not desert then he must be determined not to take a life but to intentionally shoot wide regardless of the danger to himself. In general I would caution against seeing a too wide gulf between conscripts and volunteers. Unless we are talking about virtual slave armies like that of 18th century Prussia, then every soldier is to some extent a volunteer.
Yes there is a difference. But in a strictly moral sense it could be seen as more unjust to participate in a war to protect your family from the state. To kill an innocent 3rd party to protect yourself from the state is bad. To kill an innocent 3rd party to protect another innocent 3rd party from the state equally as bad if not more.
Historically, deserters are executed. I don’t believe they kill deserters today but I do know that you will serve a long prison sentence. Once you are in your options only become worse.
I don’t think culpability should be linked to how voluntary the action is. I think it is more linked to the options available to the individual. After all, every action is voluntary. People choose one condition over another. Even slavery is voluntary. The slave chooses subservience over death.
Marko:No. That would be sophistry. If the date is September 1st a German officer is not the equal of a Polish officer. The Polish officer is not a willing participant to the war. He has no choice but to defend his people.
But is the Polish soldier killing for his people or killing for the Polish states control over a particular piece of dirt? I don’t know the answer to this. We have to remember that there were millions of Germans in Poland who wished to be part of Germany. And a great deal of the land occupied by Poland had been traditionally part of Prussia. So it could be seen as the Polish soldier fighting for the Polish state to retain control of people and lands that it did not have a right to. All states are aggressors. Trying to determine which the bad guy is and which is the good guy is a confused business that I try to stay away from.
Marko: We judge them the same as those who do not care whether their cause is just or not, for they obviously do not, but go to war blindly. They are the same as those who see through the lies but join the aggressor anyway because they have no philosophical qualms about committing aggression. The people in our example have qualms in theory, but not in practice. Also, even if their initial self-delusion could be rationalised away, what then is to be said of them when they fail to desert even after a period of time served? Surely after some time spent in the actual war, all that they need to deduce that they are the aggressor they have available.
I think they do care if the war is just, only that they lack the sophistication to understand. I don’t see it as willfully turning a blind eye to an unjust war, but as making the best judgment they are capable of given their abilities and resources. I liken it to something about Christianity that always bothered me. Everyone who has not accepted Jesus goes to hell. What about those who knew nothing of Jesus? Seems awfully unfair and unforgiving to me.
Marko:Luckily we are not assigning blame to any actual people. We are assigning blame to theoretical people who are a construct of our imagination. So we are in the position to know.
Fair enough. I shouldn’t get ahead of the discussion.
Southern: But is the Polish soldier killing for his people or killing for the Polish states control over a particular piece of dirt? I don’t know the answer to this. We have to remember that there were millions of Germans in Poland who wished to be part of Germany. And a great deal of the land occupied by Poland had been traditionally part of Prussia. So it could be seen as the Polish soldier fighting for the Polish state to retain control of people and lands that it did not have a right to. All states are aggressors. Trying to determine which the bad guy is and which is the good guy is a confused business that I try to stay away from.
That is moral cowardice.
Marko: Southern: But is the Polish soldier killing for his people or killing for the Polish states control over a particular piece of dirt? I don’t know the answer to this. We have to remember that there were millions of Germans in Poland who wished to be part of Germany. And a great deal of the land occupied by Poland had been traditionally part of Prussia. So it could be seen as the Polish soldier fighting for the Polish state to retain control of people and lands that it did not have a right to. All states are aggressors. Trying to determine which the bad guy is and which is the good guy is a confused business that I try to stay away from. That is moral cowardice.
Well I guess you have identified where we part ways. So is it not relevent why the polish soldier was fighting?
Forget the Polish soldier. When you refuse to weight guilt but instead purposely limit yourself to "all states are aggressors", you equalise the far more guilty and the far less guilty and do not allow for a possibility of a clear aggression as long as one side is not immaculate. With that kind of attitude there is nothing further to talk about since all combatants ever have already been assigned to the same moral plane.
Marko: Forget the Polish soldier. When you refuse to weight guilt but instead purposely limit yourself to "all states are aggressors", you equalise the far more guilty and the far less guilty and do not allow for a possibility of a clear aggression as long as one side is not immaculate. With that kind of attitude there is nothing further to talk about since all combatants ever have already been assigned to the same moral plane.
Well that is not what I meant to do. I only attempt to illistrate that it is irrelevant to me whether a state is an aggressor or not. What is important to me is whether the individuals that fight in wars are guilty of crimes. What those crimes are and to what extent are the soldiers responsible. You suggested in the other thread that we look at individual actions. That is what I am trying to do.
Southern: Yes there is a difference. But in a strictly moral sense it could be seen as more unjust to participate in a war to protect your family from the state. To kill an innocent 3rd party to protect yourself from the state is bad. To kill an innocent 3rd party to protect another innocent 3rd party from the state equally as bad if not more.
But in our case the soldier coerced into joining a war of aggression by the fact his family is being held hostage kills an innocent 3rd party in order to save himself and under the "extreme circumstances of war". The reason he joins the military and the reason he kills are not one and the same.
He is not a willing participant to the war, thus he has the right to defend himself with lethal force even against other unwilling participants of the war.
Southern: Historically, deserters are executed. I don’t believe they kill deserters today but I do know that you will serve a long prison sentence. Once you are in your options only become worse.
Most deserters never get caught.
Southern: I don’t think culpability should be linked to how voluntary the action is. I think it is more linked to the options available to the individual. After all, every action is voluntary. People choose one condition over another. Even slavery is voluntary. The slave chooses subservience over death.
A conscript even if he would rather be somewhere else, still probably takes some pride in serving and being a soldier. There is much less amount of coercion involved than it would take to bound a slave.
Southern: I think they do care if the war is just, only that they lack the sophistication to understand. I don’t see it as willfully turning a blind eye to an unjust war, but as making the best judgment they are capable of given their abilities and resources.
I think they do care if the war is just, only that they lack the sophistication to understand. I don’t see it as willfully turning a blind eye to an unjust war, but as making the best judgment they are capable of given their abilities and resources.
Everyone has the reasoning capacity to figure out these thing. The problem is they don't use it. So how can they claim to care to know, if they don't try to figure it out?
Southern: Well that is not what I meant to do. I only attempt to illistrate that it is irrelevant to me whether a state is an aggressor or not. What is important to me is whether the individuals that fight in wars are guilty of crimes. What those crimes are and to what extent are the soldiers responsible. You suggested in the other thread that we look at individual actions. That is what I am trying to do.
But it can not be irrelevant which state is burdened with the greater portion of the guilt.
Exactly to the level that the campaign is conducted for the sake of worthy goals it is permissible to be a part of such a campaign. Exactly to the level that the campaign is conducted for the sake of unworthy, unjust goals it is impermissible to be a part of such an effort. To the extent that the German attack on Poland was about the self-determination of Germans in Poland it was permissible of Germans to take part in it. To the extent that the Polish defence against German attack was about denying the self-determination of Germans in Poland it was impermissible of Poles to take part in it.A soldier fighting and killing in a campaign can not separate himself from the overall goals of the campaign. He can not aid its every goal, but then claim he was fighting for merely one of those goals. He was fighting for all of them (that means for all of the goals of the campaign he had the means that would enable him to figure them out).
Marko:In general I would caution against seeing a too wide gulf between conscripts and volunteers.
Marko:He is not a willing participant to the war, thus he has the right to defend himself with lethal force even against other unwilling participants of the war.
Having to be drafted indicates that he are an unwilling participant in the war, thus he has the right to defend himself with lethal force. I think that there is a wide gulf between someone drafted and one who volunteers.
Marko:Most deserters never get caught.
I dont know how you would know if this is true or not. But whether they get caught or not is irrelevent. They give up everything if they desert. They can never return home (at least for the length of the war). Also when you are in a foriegn country where you dont speak the language.... where are you going to desert to? Locals will identify you as an enemy soldier, report you, have you captured, and then most likely imprisoned or executed. Once you are in, your options only get worse. So once again there really is no way out for a draftee that does not include giving up thier lives. Either literally or figuratively.
Marko:A conscript even if he would rather be somewhere else, still probably takes some pride in serving and being a soldier. There is much less amount of coercion involved than it would take to bound a slave.
Many slaves took pride in being their masters best servant. Does that mean that all slaves relished being a slave? How about some slaves? Most? The fact is we cannot tell. The only way we can tell someones intentions is through voluntary action. Once you introduce the threat of violence, we are just guessing at their motivations. Same with the soldier.
Marko:Everyone has the reasoning capacity to figure out these thing. The problem is they don't use it. So how can they claim to care to know, if they don't try to figure it out?
I think you give people too much credit and yourself not enough.
Marko:A soldier fighting and killing in a campaign can not separate himself from the overall goals of the campaign. He can not aid its every goal, but then claim he was fighting for merely one of those goals. He was fighting for all of them (that means for all of the goals of the campaign he had the means that would enable him to figure them out).
Of course he can and he may be fighting for none of the states goals. That is what we have been talking about this whole time. The conditions and situations that would allow an individual to be absolved from guilt. Whether it is completely, a little, or not at all.
Marko:But it can not be irrelevant which state is burdened with the greater portion of the guilt.
It is. The state is made up of individuals. It does not exist. We are examining individual behavior. Whether someone if fighting for the sake of the state (the use of force and violence to acheive a goal), fighting out of self defense (by being force into service by threat of violence), or some mixture of the two.
Southern: I dont know how you would know if this is true or not.
I dont know how you would know if this is true or not.
Of course it is true. Do you know of a single example of a country where comparing the figures for desertion and for people imprisoned for desertion are not hugely in favour of desertions? There are now for example several thousand deserters in the US, but nowhere near that number of people locked up for it.
Southern: They give up everything if they desert. They can never return home (at least for the length of the war).
They give up everything if they desert. They can never return home (at least for the length of the war).
It does not matter. It is not severe enough to make up for what you say is otherwise murder. Being away from home is less of a sacrifice than what they would exact on an innocent in order to be able to return home.
Southern: Having to be drafted indicates that he are an unwilling participant in the war, thus he has the right to defend himself with lethal force. Many slaves took pride in being their masters best servant. Does that mean that all slaves relished being a slave? How about some slaves? Most? The fact is we cannot tell. The only way we can tell someones intentions is through voluntary action. Once you introduce the threat of violence, we are just guessing at their motivations. Same with the soldier.
Having to be drafted indicates that he are an unwilling participant in the war, thus he has the right to defend himself with lethal force.
Do you really believe this? What would you say is the right course of action if you were placed in a position where you either have to kill someone or your finger will be broken? Obviously it is impermissible to kill someone to save your finger.
This is essentially the position the conscript is in. He is under some coercion, so he is permitted to defend himself to some extent. But certainly not to the extent where he commits greater aggression than the aggression perpetrated against him. So lets say that he (of course presuming he is serving the clearly aggressing army in an unjust war) can defend himself up to the point where he wounds the enemy. But if he kills him, then the mitigating circumstances are not big enough to cover for the whole severity of his action.
Southern: I think you give people too much credit and yourself not enough.
No, I do not. It is right there in the Bible somewhere. God gave everyone reason. It just needs to be used.
Southern: Of course he can and he may be fighting for none of the states goals. That is what we have been talking about this whole time.
Of course he can and he may be fighting for none of the states goals. That is what we have been talking about this whole time.
I think you are confusing the "why" and the "what for". The reason why someone fights is up to him. And it can be a worthy goal even if the person fighting is fighting on the side of the aggressor. But the "what for" is not up to the soldier fighting. It is up to the generals and the politicians. Let me illustrate. In the Russian Civil War in the Red Army served thousands upon thousands of officers were made up of former officers of the Tsarist Army. The reason why most of them served was because they were forced to. In many cases their families would be in danger if they refused to. However what they fought for was Bolshevism. There is no going around this. Their personal goals - preserving the lives of their families - were worthy but what they fought for and helped bring about was despicable and not up to them. So the soldiers fighting in a campaign can not ultimately be separated from the goals of the campaign they contributed to. Even if they are motivated by just one goal of the state's war they fight for all its goals, not just the one that they like.
Marko:I agree that unjustified killing is not necessarily murder. From what little I know from television unjustified killings fall within varied categories like "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", "manslaughter", "neglected homicide", "murder through depraved indifference" and possibly many others.
Caley McKibbin: Marko:I agree that unjustified killing is not necessarily murder. From what little I know from television unjustified killings fall within varied categories like "murder in the first degree", "murder in the second degree", "manslaughter", "neglected homicide", "murder through depraved indifference" and possibly many others. All junk with no relevence to libertarianism.
So in your libertarian world there is no difference in killing? It is either just or its murder?
Marko: Southern: I dont know how you would know if this is true or not. Of course it is true. Do you know of a single example of a country where comparing the figures for desertion and for people imprisoned for desertion are not hugely in favour of desertions? There are now for example several thousand deserters in the US, but nowhere near that number of people locked up for it.
How many? And where are you getting this information? Not trying to be difficult, I would just like to know.
Marko:It does not matter. It is not severe enough to make up for what you say is otherwise murder. Being away from home is less of a sacrifice than what they would exact on an innocent in order to be able to return home.
I guess this is where we differ on the conscription issue. You equate this with just being away from home. Its much more than that to the average person. All that someone ever knew is taken away from them. To me and many, many people is only slightly less than losing our lives. But I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this point.
Marko: Do you really believe this? What would you say is the right course of action if you were placed in a position where you either have to kill someone or your finger will be broken? Obviously it is impermissible to kill someone to save your finger. This is essentially the position the conscript is in. He is under some coercion, so he is permitted to defend himself to some extent. But certainly not to the extent where he commits greater aggression than the aggression perpetrated against him. So lets say that he (of course presuming he is serving the clearly aggressing army in an unjust war) can defend himself up to the point where he wounds the enemy. But if he kills him, then the mitigating circumstances are not big enough to cover for the whole severity of his action.
Yes. When someone is coerced into action, we only know that they were forced to act. That the act was involuntary. You veiw the threat of imprisonment, death, or exile as not enough of a threat to justify killing. I do. But it seems that you feel killing to protect others from death or imprisonment (your family) is more justifiable. It is more justifiable to defend others than yourself. I not so sure I agree. But I do understand where you are coming from.
Marko:I think you are confusing the "why" and the "what for". The reason why someone fights is up to him. And it can be a worthy goal even if the person fighting is fighting on the side of the aggressor. But the "what for" is not up to the soldier fighting. It is up to the generals and the politicians.
I understand this point. However it is irrelevent to the soldier what the ultimate goal of the campaign is. His action is determined by the "why". That is the only thing we can put him on trail for. His own action and whether he had good reason to do what he did or he had no good reason. We should do this for each soldier, officer, general, politician. The crimes associated with the "what for" are those of the politicians. Convict them of those crimes not the soldiers that they coerced into fighting thier war.
Marko:Let me illustrate. In the Russian Civil War in the Red Army served thousands upon thousands of officers were made up of former officers of the Tsarist Army. The reason why most of them served was because they were forced to. In many cases their families would be in danger if they refused to. However what they fought for was Bolshevism. There is no going around this. Their personal goals - preserving the lives of their families - were worthy but what they fought for and helped bring about was despicable and not up to them. So the soldiers fighting in a campaign can not ultimately be separated from the goals of the campaign they contributed to. Even if they are motivated by just one goal of the state's war they fight for all its goals, not just the one that they like.
Convict the Bolshevics of the "what for" crimes and convict the soldiers of the "why" crimes. To hold a soldier accoutable for things outside his control, in my opinion, is unjust.
Marko:So to judge rights and wrongs you first need to judge the rights and the wrongs of the war itself.
I disagree. To judge right and wrong we must look at the actions of individuals and the circumstances surrounding the individual action. The sins of a government (or more percisely the individuals that make up government) are thiers and should not be passed on to others.
Southern: How many? And where are you getting this information? Not trying to be difficult, I would just like to know.
Around 5000 officialy.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10126890http://www.antiwar.com/orig/solson.php?articleid=11938
Southern: Yes. When someone is coerced into action, we only know that they were forced to act. That the act was involuntary. You veiw the threat of imprisonment, death, or exile as not enough of a threat to justify killing. I do.
Yes. When someone is coerced into action, we only know that they were forced to act. That the act was involuntary. You veiw the threat of imprisonment, death, or exile as not enough of a threat to justify killing. I do.
"Justify" is really the wrong word to use. Even under my conditions aggression is still taking place. It is just recognising that it is a no-exit situation. But yours doesn't seem like a no-exit situation. The person in question has an option. To let himself be exiled, imprisoned, or to join the army but refuse to defend himself with lethal force.
If threat of imprisonment, or exile is enough to make up for what would otherwise be murder, then why not the threat of stealing a carton of milk in your possession? Surely then the person joining the military has been coerced and is acting in an involuntary fashion, after all he only joined in order to save his carton of milk.
Do you have an answer for this problem? Can you explain without resorting to an arbitrary statement why someone who joined under the threat of having his milk stolen would be guilty of murder to kill someone in an unjust war, but someone who joined under threat of exile is not?
I have a non-arbitrary explanation for what I am saying. The person in my scenario exacts no more violence on others than the violence that would be exacted on him. What about you?
Surely there must be degrees between the fully willing and the fully unwilling combatants in the war? Someone who is taking part in the war under the threat of milk can not claim the same right to defend himself against defending combatants with the same means that somebody taking part in the war under the threat of life.
As a side note you seem to attribute to me something that is not my position. Unlike what you wrote the threat of death is sufficient for me, but it has to be a credible threat. There must be a high likelihood that it will be carried out. Else it counts as some type of lesser threat.
Southern: I understand this point. However it is irrelevent to the soldier what the ultimate goal of the campaign is. His action is determined by the "why". That is the only thing we can put him on trail for. His own action and whether he had good reason to do what he did or he had no good reason. We should do this for each soldier, officer, general, politician. The crimes associated with the "what for" are those of the politicians. Convict them of those crimes not the soldiers that they coerced into fighting thier war. I disagree. To judge right and wrong we must look at the actions of individuals and the circumstances surrounding the individual action. The sins of a government (or more percisely the individuals that make up government) are thiers and should not be passed on to others.
Let us not lose sight of how this branch of debate started out. Professional soldiers in the German-Polish war and to what extent it is permissible to voluntarily serve in a certain army. The answer is only to the extent that the army in question is not engaging in aggression. If one voluntarily joins an army that just by fighting is engaging in some sort of aggression, then he too just by taking lives as a part of this army is partaking in the aggression. A German soldier even if he is merely motivated by securing the self-determination of Germans in Poland is still partaking in the aggression that is the conquest of the whole of Poland. It is true that the Polish soldier likewise is partaking in the aggression of the Polish state against the Germans in Poland, but he actually does not have much of a choice. Because of the unfortunate existence of the Polish state about the only realistic way he can avert a greater evil of his whole country being conquered and subject to an extraordinarily brutal occupation is to partake in this lesser form of aggression. The German soldier on the other hand does not really need to volunteer to help conquer Poland in order to fight for the self-determination of Germans in Poland, no more than the Pole needs to conquer the whole of Germany to fight for the Poles on the other side of the border. BTW, I really wouldn't want to argue the Germany-Poland scenario as such, I only introduced it initially thinking it would be a non-controversial example of a war where one side was a clear aggressor and clearly far more guilty than the other. I hope that you will agree that it is possible that such a war occurs and if so you can just read Germany and Poland as state A and state B with the assumption that the state A is the clear aggressor but that the state B is not blameless as indeed by its very definition no state is.
Southern: Convict the Bolshevics of the "what for" crimes and convict the soldiers of the "why" crimes. To hold a soldier accoutable for things outside his control, in my opinion, is unjust.
That is not possible. You can not commit somebody for the "whys". That would be introducing a category of a thought crime. Their motivation is their own. People can only be convicted of what they do, not of why they do it.The said officers would not be convicted anyway, but someone who was willingly a soldier of that army in that war would be clearly guilty of counts of aggression even if he was personally motivated by notions of a better world, land reform or good wages.
Southern:So in your libertarian world there is no difference in killing? It is either just or its murder?
So all unjust killing is murder and should be treated as such? An action performed under duress is treated the same as an action done on your free will?
Southern:So all unjust killing is murder and should be treated as such? An action performed under duress is treated the same as an action done on your free will?
testing testing 123
i can only get the quick repley to work
Marko,
“Do you have an answer for this problem? Can you explain without resorting to an arbitrary statement why someone who joined under the threat of having his milk stolen would be guilty of murder to kill someone in an unjust war, but someone who joined under threat of exile is not?
I have a non-arbitrary explanation for what I am saying. The person in my scenario exacts no more violence on others than the violence that would be exacted on him. What about you?”
I agree with your assessment.
“If threat of imprisonment, or exile is enough to make up for what would otherwise be murder, then why not the threat of stealing a carton of milk in your possession? Surely then the person joining the military has been coerced and is acting in an involuntary fashion, after all he only joined in order to save his carton of milk.”
As you described above, because the milk threat is not on par with the threat to one’s life. I think we just disagree on the level of threat imprisonment or exile is. I think it is only slightly less than being killed. It seems you feel it is significantly less.
“As a side note you seem to attribute to me something that is not my position. Unlike what you wrote the threat of death is sufficient for me, but it has to be a credible threat. There must be a high likelihood that it will be carried out. Else it counts as some type of lesser threat.”
I have written that the threat of death doesn’t have to be credible?
“BTW, I really wouldn't want to argue the Germany-Poland scenario as such”
Agreed, it specifically has nothing to do with my point, which is, that no matter the conflict there are bad guys on both sides. We have to examine each case individually and determine whether their specific circumstances justify their actions completely, partially, or not at all. We have to be careful about convicting people for crimes of the “state”. The state didn’t commit any crimes people did. The state did not aggress, people did. Just because the “state” aggressed doesn’t mean that every individual who is part of the state is guilty of the same.
“That is not possible. You can not commit somebody for the "whys". That would be introducing a category of a thought crime. Their motivation is their own. People can only be convicted of what they do, not of why they do it.”
The “whys” are not the crimes. They are the mitigating circumstances that we examine to determine if their actions are understandable. Whether they are guilty of murder, manslaughter, or maybe guilty of nothing at all.
Caley,
“No. Killing is killing. There is no "murder". One who kills under duress is still a killer.”
Of course there is “murder”. We have terms like “murder” and “manslaughter” for a reason. They would not go away in a libertarian world. They describe the type of killing and by extension the type of restitution due.
However, the kind of duress may shift the responsive action against the person who applied the duress. Such as the case that Person A threatens to kill Person B if he does not kill Person C. Person A is the real danger. He wants to kill people.
Which this whole conversation has been about. So, tell me again how this is irrelevant?
However, that judgment depends on how seriously the threat can be taken and what options Person B had to avoid both outcomes... which Marko said.”
I hope that we all agree on this.
A poor reason. They would. They don't.
“A poor reason.”
Having specific language to describe ideas, situations, etc. is a poor reason?
“They would.”
What? Go away? Why would they?
“They don't.”
What? Help define what type of restitution? Why would they not if they describe a certain set of circumstances which surrounds a killing?
Have you read any sort of essay or book on the libertarian idea?
Some. If I am mistaken in some way please enlighten me. So far you have offered very little other than our discussion is irrelevent, killing is killing, and there is no murder.
"No. Killing is killing. There is no "murder". One who kills under duress is still a killer. However, the kind of duress may shift the responsive action against the person who applied the duress. Such as the case that Person A threatens to kill Person B if he does not kill Person C. Person A is the real danger. He wants to kill people. However, that judgement depends on how seriously the threat can be taken and what options Person B had to avoid both outcomes... which Marko said.""
Im not sure what you are taking issue with. You outlined in your post exactly what we have been discussing. Where the responsiblity lies when someones life is taken? Are there circumstances in which some, part, or all of the responsiblitiy can be shifted or forgiven?
What about when there are realistic ways of avoiding concription but no attempt is made to take advantage of thereof? Like faking injury, volunteering for the navy, or filling for conscientious objector?
Then it is much less understandable and you would have to bear a greater share of the responsiblility. But these are loopholes available to only a small number, if too many take advantage of the loopholes then they go away. You can volunteer for another branch, but if too many are they will just funnel you to where they need you. You can fake an injury, but if too many are coming up lame they will just change thier policy for injury. You can claim to be a conscientious objector, but if too many file they will just repeal thier policy. If people veiw the war as unjust, then they should do all in their power to avoid being used, but whats under thier control is limited in most cases.
I am curious how far apart we are. I think we agree that mitigating circumstances can lessen, and in some cases eliminate, a soldiers responsiblity, while we disagree on how much those circumstances will mitigate.