life and death

[GeekUSA]

For a while I've been debating with myself if fighting and war is ever worth the human lives it takes. I believe we are all the same people, that is the people of the world, and I am in no way a nationalist. However, I'm also an extremely firm believer in balence and I think you cannot have war without peace and visa-versa. Besides, throwing on some fatigues and becoming a guerilla seems like a very good idea in some situations.

Death is incomprehensible to me, especially in war. It is becoming a casual thing, to die in war, and people are desensitised to the fact that soldiers are real people. But does killing to save lives make sense? Is that justifiable? Anyway, it should be interesting to see what you all think.

[Enragé]

If the amount of people you eventually save exceeds the amount of people you have to kill to create the situation in which the amount of people are saved, its worth it.

Thats my reasoning. It pretty much always works.
For example: wiping out the very substantial amount of members of the NSDAP before ww2 to save 10 million civilians and god knows how many others, would have been worth it.

On top of that, the life of a soldier (for the revolution) is in service of the people. Therefore the life of a non-combatant proletarian (etc) is more important than the life of a soldier in the service of the revolution (a vanguardist).

[coda]

yes, that is always a very good question to consider. Nobody who has qualms in killing for war should ever do it. and wars often do not make sense when there does not seem a rational reason behind it. Wars of Liberation (not the Iraq war) are often much easier to justify than wars of imperialism, which most wars have been about to date.

The question of is it worth killing some to save the many: That is the dilemma or f the "Titanic connundrum" or the ship going down at sea question: there's two rafts full of people drifting at sea, one raft has more people on it than the other, and there is only enough room on the rescue boat to save one raft. Of course, one would probably choose to save the raft with the most people.

i was reading a book and came to a part about a guerilla soldier who was about to shoot his enemy. When he looked through the scope of the gun, he saw the enemy, someone very different from him in political views, goals, beliefs, someone likewise ready to harm him and take his life. He also saw someone very much the same of him, with the same universal commonalities: brother, father, husband, friend, someone who had to work, pay bills, slept with his wife and took his daughter to the park & had a beer with his friends. As he rationalized all this.. he still knew his job was to kill the man....and that he did. But the irony was not lost.

Some people can do it.. some people cannot and some people learn to adapt to the distastefullness of it. Not so easy when you come face to face with having to make that type of decision for yourself.

[Che1990]

I think killing is only acceptable if the victim deserves it. Like if I saw some KKK asshole kill a black guy I would kill the KKK guy. If I saw some homophobe kill a gay guy I would kill the homophobe. I think George Bush deserves to be killed and I wouldn't turn down the opportunity. I think it must be hard to kill someone unless it's for something you believe in or if they really truly deserve it. Then I would imagine it could be pretty easy. Well...for me anyway, but I've never had to face the choice.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Your post brings up an interesting point. I can think of a large amount of people in this country that would be the opposite of sad to see our president die, which says something fairly powerful about the state of things in the United States.

Killing is obviously easily justifiable with hatred (homophobia, racism, etc.) and technicalities (UN restrictions). However there is a problem with both of these reasons. Instead of showing someone what must be the truth in an argument, you are instead putting a bullet in their head, which does not much at all to silence the idea. For example, even if President Bush was killed, there would be more who still believe in some ridiculous things alongside with him. Dick would be in office.

Whether or not murder actually accomplishes anything the ultimate statement made by the act is that I believe that my life is more valuable than yours, which is a fragile decision to make on opinion.

[GeekUSA]

This is all really great, thanks, but if you are going to kill someone for a cause that you believe just, thats like assuming that they are wrong. No one is ever right or wrong, there is only differences of opinion.

[Enragé]

"No one is ever right or wrong, there is only differences of opinion."

If someone lets other people suffer through his or her "difference of opinion", he or she is wrong. period.

[apathy maybe]

Everybody dies, sometime.

This is not to say that you have the right to kill them. I think that there are only a few instances where the taking of another humans life (or more accurately, another intelligent beings life) would be acceptable. One would be were that person was threatening and had the means of carrying out the threat of mass murder.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:43 PM
"No one is ever right or wrong, there is only differences of opinion."

If someone lets other people suffer through his or her "difference of opinion", he or she is wrong. Period.
So you admit you believe in "wrong", then? :lol:
When you have wrong, you have the right.
And we all know the right sucks and left rules, right?
Heheheheheheh :P

[GeekUSA]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:29 PM

"No one is ever right or wrong, there is only differences of opinion."

If someone lets other people suffer through his or her "difference of opinion", he or she is wrong. Period.
So you admit you believe in "wrong", then? :lol:
When you have wrong, you have the right.
And we all know the right sucks and left rules, right?
Heheheheheheh :P

So you admit you believe in "wrong", then? :lol:
When you have wrong, you have the right.
And we all know the right sucks and left rules, right?

Hell yes, lol.

If someone is injuring someone and that makes them wrong, they could be helping many other people as well. Or, injuring someone could help the injured person in the end. If you eliminate right and wrong, killing doesn't make alot of sense. Then again, neither does saving.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I don't kill myself (haha) over issues such as these; as most likely for me it will be a case of either me dying or some other bastard who is trying to kill me having to die - in which case the choice is obvious, you waste the other guy as quickly as possible.

But it did get me thinking; what if someone took my girlfriend/sister/mother/etc hostage? Do I submit to this person's demands and allow him to get away and perhaps threaten others, or do I sacrifice the hostage's life in order to prevent this criminal threatening more people?

The cold, logical choice is of course is to not allow this person to control you and draw your gun and shoot them dead, through the hostage if necessary, but human sentimentality means that in cases like this it takes a sociopath to do the right thing.

[fallen camarade]

Simple utilitarianism seems to work...

Don't kill unless it's absolutely imperative, which would be to save your life (as it's natural instinct to keep one's self alive), or if killing one would save many more.

But then again, I'm a moral relativist, older than 14, and don't worship philosophers like gods as most people on this board do, so what the hell do I know, right....?

[SittingBull47]

utililitarianism was the first thing I thought of as well when I saw this topic.
I too believe that it is better to kill somebody and save a whole lot of people than to have that person live and kill others. Forgive the tired example, but take Hitler for instance.

[chebol]

The question then stands- would the killing of Hitler have saved millions? Probably not.
Would killing Bush save millions? Who can say. It's not the right question.
The point is to change the world so that people killing people becomes a thing of the past. This may, contradictorally, mean killing people. Welcome to the world- rife with contradiction.

On another note, I support the wholesale slaughter of carrots. They are different from us, and also taste good.

[Gnosis]

For a while I've been debating with myself if fighting and war is ever worth the human lives it takes. I believe we are all the same people, that is the people of the world, and I am in no way a nationalist. However, I'm also an extremely firm believer in balence and I think you cannot have war without peace and visa-versa. Besides, throwing on some fatigues and becoming a guerilla seems like a very good idea in some situations.

Death is incomprehensible to me, especially in war. It is becoming a casual thing, to die in war, and people are desensitised to the fact that soldiers are real people. But does killing to save lives make sense? Is that justifiable? Anyway, it should be interesting to see what you all think.

Killing people is always okay.
People were born to die.
War is always pointless as it is a part of life and life is pointless.
War gives life meaning in an otherwise meaningless reality.
War is easy, war is exciting, war is expensive but so long as you've got a working class to sap taxes from and a lot of women acting as soldier factories to supply the pawns, you can play war with your friends for all of eternity and never really grow out of it.

I would like to hear more of what you have to say about the balance of war and peace.

In what situations would you become a guerilla fighter?

I agree with you when you say we are bewcoming desensitized to death by war.

All actions are justifiable if you know a language well enough and know who you're speaking to.

Does killing to save lives make sense?
Yes and no.

Yes, because if we were to kill almost every human being on the planet, we would be "saving" the lives of many trees, endangered species of animal and plant, unendangered species, the atmosphere, and all of the humans left over, which might be destroyed or manipulated in order to keep every one "alive".

No, because we would be killing life, and killing a life is not necessarily saving that life, unless you look at it as saving that life and then it is.

If you think something makes sense, it does.
If you think something is justified, then it is.
You decide.

What makes a person "real"?

Hitler was justified in what he did.

[Latifa]

The question then stands- would the killing of Hitler have saved millions? Probably not. Funnily enough, someone has recognised that Hitler wasn't the only Nazi extremist in post- WW1 Europe.


Would killing Bush save millions? Who can say. It's not the right question. No


On another note, I support the wholesale slaughter of carrots. They are different from us, and also taste good.

:lol: You sir, have brightened my day.

[Lord Testicles]

Killing people is always okay.

umm. No its not killing people is only okay if that person intents on killing you/and or many other people


People were born to die.

Yes. That doesnt make it right to kill some one tho who is innocent and 40 years before his or her time.



War is always pointless as it is a part of life and life is pointless.

War is not always pointless look at WW2 is it poinless to stop the spread of facism?



War gives life meaning in an otherwise meaningless reality

so your saying we sould kill to give meaning to our life? c'mon if everyone took that veiw there would be mass suicide.


Hitler was justified in what he did.

is that your personal view? i hope not.

I pesonally belive though that killing people in order to save the lifes of many is reasonable and that a war is sometimes nessasary.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:15 PM
If the amount of people you eventually save exceeds the amount of people you have to kill to create the situation in which the amount of people are saved, its worth it.
thats the reasoning the us used in the hiroshima bombing, though

[The Grey Blur]

It is right to fight back with lethal force if you are oppressed, so long as you do your best not to kill the enemies civilians.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Sep 16 2005, 07:04 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Sep 16 2005, 07:04 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 12:15 PM
If the amount of people you eventually save exceeds the amount of people you have to kill to create the situation in which the amount of people are saved, its worth it.
thats the reasoning the us used in the hiroshima bombing, though [/b]
they projected it would save 200,000 US soldiers lives. and im not sure the exact figure of japanese civilian dead was but it was pretty close to that number. ;)

[Hate Is Art]

This whole topic seems to be to taken from the wrong perspective. You assume killing people is wrong, but to assume that you have to say that everyone has a right to life?

Then that there is some kind of point in this life? There most likely isn't. So then what is the point in staying alive?

Then you have to assume that killing people is wrong. Which also means you have to assume there is such a thing as wrong? It's all horribly objective.

You think GWB, el Tone, Pinochet et al thought they were wrong? They think we are wrong and why is their opinion any less valid then ares.

It is right to fight back with lethal force if you are oppressed, so long as you do your best not to kill the enemies civilians.

Why? You aren't going to just kill the person who is orchestrating the action of your oppresion. You are going to kill soldiers. Who are just the same as you exept they happened to be born somewhere else and ended up fighting for a different team.

War is in many ways, pointless, but so is life. If we didn't have war there would be some other way to cause pain and suffering to innocent people. But most people aren't innocent really, if you add all the really bad shit you've done (or will do) over the course of your natural life, I could probably make a case for having you killed.

Heaven knows you could be the next Hitler? Do you think Hitler thought he was gonna be Hitler as a little kid? Playing in the dirt in Austria eating his bratwurst in a bun?

Could you justify killing baby Hitler? And could you really bring your self to kill baby Hitler?

[gilhyle]

If we mix up private morality, public morality, ethics and tactical/strategic efficacy we can construct an endlessly entertaining conversation about lives and deaths that we don't decide on. I wonder is it morally, ethically or tactically justified to entertain ourselves in this way. No offence meant, of course.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 17 2005, 11:43 PM
And could you really bring your self to kill baby Hitler?
If i knew what he was going to do? Yes

[Hate Is Art]

You'd kill a baby? Doesn't make you some way as bad as him?

Anyway it wouldn't do anything, Hitler wasn't the only Nazi, other people might try and do the same.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 20 2005, 10:36 PM
You'd kill a baby? Doesn't make you some way as bad as him?

Anyway it wouldn't do anything, Hitler wasn't the only Nazi, other people might try and do the same.
Wouldn't you kill him if you knew what he was going to do? Considering that the nazi party was fairly small until hitler joined changed its name and then gave inspiring speaches to the German people id say he was a large factor in it coming to power.

Killing him might stop the Nazis coming to power, might stop WW2 and god only knows what else so yes i would kill him and no it wouldnt make me as bad as he is because he killed millions not directly of course but still throught his actions and orders millions of people were killed.

[rioters bloc]

not endorsing hitler's actions in any way or form

but to blame the holocaust entirely on him and assuming that killing him would effectively stop the holocaust is a little simplistic.

the ideas were around, he just happened to be the one to grab them and disseminate them.

[Lord Testicles]

but to blame the holocaust entirely on him and assuming that killing him would effectively stop the holocaust is a little simplistic.

the ideas were around, he just happened to be the one to grab them and disseminate them.

Yes but by killing him the nazi party might not have come to power in germany at least.

[slim]

There were hundreds of similar far right anti semetic parties and many more powerful than the national socialists. Hitler was member 155 though in reality he was member 55 because the party simply added 100 to make it seem larger. If the nazis didnt rise then another party would have.

[Hate Is Art]

Exactly my point.

Such things as that are almost inevitable,

[RedStarMilitia]

killing a baby hitler may seem as bad as him but from the utilitarian approach (the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people) it could be justified, hitler would kill 6million times as more people as me, people that would never commit crimes.
even the people who died under hitler were killed only by hitler's order, he wasnt even man enough to do it himself.

dont use a capital letter for hitler, he may have been a genius but his persona does not deserve the acknowledgement

[RedStarMilitia]

Even if another party would have executed similar ides as Hitler atleast iliminating him would reduce the chance of it hapening, if there's a chance innocent lives can be saved it should be taken