morality

Gabrielles blades · 06-18-2002, 03:30 AM

i ponder the morality of life on this planet...

I more or less feel that it is not right to kill another person unless he/she is directly threatening my life or my families lives.

but then that leads to the problem involving nations

what is the moral thing to do if your in a situation where a person representing another nation comes into your home and almost kills you, but you kill him. the law finds out about it and the nation is now riled up against the other nation for the incident, so your defending of your family has now created a war that will no doubt get innocents of the other nation killed as well as members of your own nation.

knowing that if you had not defended yourself you would be dead, but that the nations would not have gone to war, then what is the moral thing to do? if you do not defend you lose your life, but if you defend many many more people will lose their lives.

and what of the vengeance scenario?
you did or did not defend, but the enemy nations soldier attacked in such a way as to kill himself whilst killing as many of those around him. is it then right to seek out the deaths of that nations leaders/soldiers when the person whom commited the act is dead already?

And what of conventional war?
If your nation is attacked, and then well defended to the point where counter attack is possible, do you then take vengeance as a nation and try to kill off the enemy rather then sue for peace?

Is defending your nation even moral if you know that so very many more people would live if you merely surrendered rather then defending?

johnny · 06-18-2002, 03:37 AM

Surrender is never an option, innocents will die under occupation as well.

[ 06-18-2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: johnny ]

Gabrielles blades · 06-18-2002, 03:49 AM

what if you know that by surrendering you will lose only 1/10 of what you would lose by waging war?

Scholarcs · 06-18-2002, 03:54 AM

That is a tough call Gabrielle, especially about the wars. Being a Christain, I believe that it is not right to kill another human. Now if everyone believed that people should not be killed, then we would have a much more peaceful planet.
By the way, welcome to Ironworks! [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

Quote:

what is the moral thing to do if your in a situation where a person representing another nation comes into your home and almost kills you, but you kill him. the law finds out about it and the nation is now riled up against the other nation for the incident, so your defending of your family has now created a war that will no doubt get innocents of the other nation killed as well as members of your own nation.

If this man was going to kill you without the orders/support from his own nation, then it is ok, no one is about to declare war for the death of one man, in an accident. However if the man did represent the government of his country, then that government wants to kill you, and a war could easily start over that, an attempted assasination.

Quote:

knowing that if you had not defended yourself you would be dead, but that the nations would not have gone to war, then what is the moral thing to do? if you do not defend you lose your life, but if you defend many many more people will lose their lives.

Morally, I believe it was better for you, one single person, to die rather than thousands more in an unnecessary war.

Quote:

And what of conventional war?
If your nation is attacked, and then well defended to the point where counter attack is possible, do you then take vengeance as a nation and try to kill off the enemy rather then sue for peace?

I do not know, all I know is that any war in the world in pointless and in vain. The only ones to see then end of a war are the ones who are dead.

[ 06-18-2002, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Scholarcs ]

Scholarcs · 06-18-2002, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades:
what if you know that by surrendering you will lose only 1/10 of what you would lose by waging war?

But then others will think that they can take what they like. Your people would feel the moral defeat. The people you surrendered to might impose injustices upon your nation.

Legolas · 06-18-2002, 04:12 AM

Sacrificing your life isn't always the moral thing to do. Take the first example; you have an agressive man (A), and a defensive man(B). If B kills A, the murder starts a war (highly unlikely, but let's assume it does and both know it). More people die until the war has run it's course.
On the other hand, if A kills B, there is a murder just like it, and a threat of war. But even if there is no war, there is still an 'agressive' person walking aound, who is bound to kill others after B, whereas if B would be the one to survive he would not voluntarily do any more killing. By defending yourself you would probably be saving lives.

In the vengeance scenario where the soldier was ordered to kill in the other country in such a way, I think talking should be attemted first. You can go around killing everyone, but that would only increase hostility, and thus attacks. If it's ineffective, close your borders to that country and file a complaint elsewhere.

Third scenario, killing people off is definately not moral. If you want to take away their ability to strike out at you, order them to disband most of their military instead. Harder than it souns, but so is 'simply' shooting everyone just because they were born in another country.

And if defending your nation isn't moral, attacking one certainy isn't either. It's often difficult to estimate what quantity of lives will be lost when you make such a decision. But even if you surrender before people get killed, most of the people in the country will not like their new government. When people are oppressed they will often fight for what they consider freedom, regardless of whether or not that takes lives. These attacks are mostly uncoordinated and usually brutal, and eventually result in more deaths than a succesful but costly defence from the start.

Or so I gathered

johnny · 06-18-2002, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gabrielles blades:
what if you know that by surrendering you will lose only 1/10 of what you would lose by waging war?

you may lose less men in combat, but you lose control over your country as well, giving the enemy the chance to do whatever he likes with your people. Mostly that will be killing them. Not to speak about losing pride.

Calaethis Dragonsbane · 06-18-2002, 05:18 AM

ah yes pride. humans tend to have a lot of that. it causes MORE problems then it solves, and yet... we all have pride. I dont believe anything is truly 'Black' or 'White', only that everything is a shade of 'grey' (if u understand what im getting at). However having said that, there ARE some ppl that appear truly 'evil'. I dont know, I dont think there is an answer. There is only Actions and Concequences.

Epona · 06-18-2002, 05:57 AM

Morality, interesting question!

I believe that morality is relative and adaptable rather than a fixed constant. Ancient Athenians valued same-sex relationships, believed that women should stay indoors or they'd be tempted to stray, and exposed unwanted babies on hillsides. Very different morality to modern 'Western' culture.

Specifically about killing, yes I would kill someone in self-defense, or if their death could prevent millions dying (eg. with hindsight I'd have been happy to personally put a bullet into Hitler or Stalin). Other than that, I'm not a violent person. I don't agree that vengeance should be a motivating force behind any violent action whether by individuals or nations. And generally I believe war harms many innocent people without actually solving anything. We have moved away from the scenario where trained soldiers fight each other and determine the winner, the involvement of millions of civilians is what worries me.

[ 06-18-2002, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Epona ]

06-18-2002, 03:57 PM

Well in my book dying in a just cause is never immoral...however defining a "just cause" is highly subjective and can really only be determined on an individual basis or by a majority vote [img]smile.gif[/img]

This is in response to the question...should a good people surrender to a bad people if in the end the body count is lower.
I dont think that the number of deaths is the factor that should be used in making this decision...just my personal view.

[ 06-18-2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

06-18-2002, 03:37 AM	#2
johnny 40th Level Warrior Join Date: April 15, 2002 Location: Utrecht The Netherlands Age: 58 Posts: 16,981	Surrender is never an option, innocents will die under occupation as well. [ 06-18-2002, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: johnny ] __________________

06-18-2002, 05:18 AM	#8
Calaethis Dragonsbane Legion Symbol Join Date: May 29, 2002 Location: Somewhere in between Age: 39 Posts: 7,029	ah yes pride. humans tend to have a lot of that. it causes MORE problems then it solves, and yet... we all have pride. I dont believe anything is truly 'Black' or 'White', only that everything is a shade of 'grey' (if u understand what im getting at). However having said that, there ARE some ppl that appear truly 'evil'. I dont know, I dont think there is an answer. There is only Actions and Concequences. __________________ Skydracgrrl: Cruelty, thy name is Cal! --- There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, none so deaf as those who refuse to hear, and none so smelly as those who refuse to bathe.

06-18-2002, 05:57 AM	#9
Epona Zartan Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: London, England Age: 53 Posts: 5,164	Morality, interesting question! I believe that morality is relative and adaptable rather than a fixed constant. Ancient Athenians valued same-sex relationships, believed that women should stay indoors or they'd be tempted to stray, and exposed unwanted babies on hillsides. Very different morality to modern 'Western' culture. Specifically about killing, yes I would kill someone in self-defense, or if their death could prevent millions dying (eg. with hindsight I'd have been happy to personally put a bullet into Hitler or Stalin). Other than that, I'm not a violent person. I don't agree that vengeance should be a motivating force behind any violent action whether by individuals or nations. And generally I believe war harms many innocent people without actually solving anything. We have moved away from the scenario where trained soldiers fight each other and determine the winner, the involvement of millions of civilians is what worries me. [ 06-18-2002, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Epona ] __________________ [img]\"http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/epona.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anger and morality	Ilander	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	8	01-19-2005 05:06 PM
morality and science in IW	promethius9594	General Discussion	17	07-17-2004 10:16 AM
A question of morality	Odruith	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	18	06-16-2004 03:38 PM
Morality before realpolitik?	Skunk	General Discussion	0	08-21-2003 03:41 AM
morality of 1010011	slug	Wizards & Warriors Forum	14	03-10-2001 10:41 PM

06-18-2002, 03:30 AM	#1
Gabrielles blades Baaz Draconian Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: florida Age: 42 Posts: 761	i ponder the morality of life on this planet... I more or less feel that it is not right to kill another person unless he/she is directly threatening my life or my families lives. but then that leads to the problem involving nations what is the moral thing to do if your in a situation where a person representing another nation comes into your home and almost kills you, but you kill him. the law finds out about it and the nation is now riled up against the other nation for the incident, so your defending of your family has now created a war that will no doubt get innocents of the other nation killed as well as members of your own nation. knowing that if you had not defended yourself you would be dead, but that the nations would not have gone to war, then what is the moral thing to do? if you do not defend you lose your life, but if you defend many many more people will lose their lives. and what of the vengeance scenario? you did or did not defend, but the enemy nations soldier attacked in such a way as to kill himself whilst killing as many of those around him. is it then right to seek out the deaths of that nations leaders/soldiers when the person whom commited the act is dead already? And what of conventional war? If your nation is attacked, and then well defended to the point where counter attack is possible, do you then take vengeance as a nation and try to kill off the enemy rather then sue for peace? Is defending your nation even moral if you know that so very many more people would live if you merely surrendered rather then defending?

06-18-2002, 03:49 AM	#3
Gabrielles blades Baaz Draconian Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: florida Age: 42 Posts: 761	what if you know that by surrendering you will lose only 1/10 of what you would lose by waging war?

06-18-2002, 04:12 AM	#6
Legolas Jack Burton Join Date: March 31, 2001 Location: The zephyr lands beneath the brine. Age: 39 Posts: 5,459	Sacrificing your life isn't always the moral thing to do. Take the first example; you have an agressive man (A), and a defensive man(B). If B kills A, the murder starts a war (highly unlikely, but let's assume it does and both know it). More people die until the war has run it's course. On the other hand, if A kills B, there is a murder just like it, and a threat of war. But even if there is no war, there is still an 'agressive' person walking aound, who is bound to kill others after B, whereas if B would be the one to survive he would not voluntarily do any more killing. By defending yourself you would probably be saving lives. In the vengeance scenario where the soldier was ordered to kill in the other country in such a way, I think talking should be attemted first. You can go around killing everyone, but that would only increase hostility, and thus attacks. If it's ineffective, close your borders to that country and file a complaint elsewhere. Third scenario, killing people off is definately not moral. If you want to take away their ability to strike out at you, order them to disband most of their military instead. Harder than it souns, but so is 'simply' shooting everyone just because they were born in another country. And if defending your nation isn't moral, attacking one certainy isn't either. It's often difficult to estimate what quantity of lives will be lost when you make such a decision. But even if you surrender before people get killed, most of the people in the country will not like their new government. When people are oppressed they will often fight for what they consider freedom, regardless of whether or not that takes lives. These attacks are mostly uncoordinated and usually brutal, and eventually result in more deaths than a succesful but costly defence from the start. Or so I gathered

06-18-2002, 03:57 PM	#10
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Well in my book dying in a just cause is never immoral...however defining a "just cause" is highly subjective and can really only be determined on an individual basis or by a majority vote [img]smile.gif[/img] This is in response to the question...should a good people surrender to a bad people if in the end the body count is lower. I dont think that the number of deaths is the factor that should be used in making this decision...just my personal view. [ 06-18-2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)