The General and the Kid

[Infected Mushroom]

I would like to explore/discuss the morals in this hypothetical:

A world war has broken out in which millions of soldiers on both sides are killed.

An army succeeds in occupying a city after a very fierce battle in which thousands of soldiers on both sides are killed.

After the city has been effectively occupied and secured, a General visits his soldiers in the city to bolster the morale. While he is talking to his soldiers, a kid (15 year old) aims a hunting rifle at him from a window and fires. The bullet misses the General by a few inches.

Soldiers drag the General to safety while troops storm the building and capture the kid. The kid is not in a military uniform and is not part of a military unit.

The kid is disarmed and brought before the General. The kid begs for mercy but the General said that the kid had already "picked a side." The General tells his soldiers to execute the kid. Very shortly after, the kid is executed by a firing squad.

...

Please discuss the morality of the General's decision to have the kid executed.

Assume the following is true:

1. International law and "laws of war" remain (on paper) in their current form; no one has bothered to change the rules before this world war broke out

2. Both sides have, by this point in the war, violated the above rules numerous times because of the blurring of the lines between military and non military combatants

3. The war has already killed millions of soldiers and civilians on both sides

4. The General does (according to his own national laws and military protocols and rules regarding POWS), have the legal right to order this execution on the spot by invoking a "special circumstances clause," however, in most situations, killing civilians (armed or unarmed) is "frowned upon"

Remember, please focus the discussion on the MORALITY of the General's actions. This may or may not be the same thing as the legality of the action for you personally. Please explain your assessment.

I conclude that while there might some violation of international law and/or war time due process, overall the action of the General to execute the kid is morally justified. Illegal perhaps, but 100% justified. As the General said, the Kid picked a side. The kid 100% expected the General to die. He knew the risks.

[Valentine Z]

As damning as it is... I generally find it morally acceptable, but only ever so slightly.

I agree with you on this one that the kid wanted the General to die, so in a way, the kid picked a side and all of that. However, he is already begging for mercy, and is already in the state of vulnerability (e.g. probably nowhere to go, defenseless, won't hurt anyone anymore). I don't want to hurt him anymore, because he's not actively killing me.

I personally would just imprison the rascal until the whole war thing blows over.

[Risottia]

Killing a person that has been caught and cannot reasonably do further harm is immoral.

[Heloin]

So basically the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but he's aged down and he took a shot at the general? I'd say the same thing in a conversation on that as with this, the general overstepped his bounds by summarily executing an enemy POW. He's in the wrong and should have just sent him to a POW camp.

1. International law and "laws of war" remain (on paper) in their current form; no one has bothered to change the rules before this world war broke out

4. The General does (according to his own national laws and military protocols and rules regarding POWS), have the legal right to order this execution on the spot by invoking a "special circumstances clause," however, in most situations, killing civilians (armed or unarmed) is "frowned upon"

These two points contradict each other. Sure plenty of nations ignore laws of war during war, but saying the laws of war are there and unchanged and saying this country made a law the breaks those law doesn't work. So I'm working that point 1 supersedes point 4 thus am ignoring it for the time being.

[Infected Mushroom]

So basically the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but he's aged down and he took a shot at the general? I'd say the same thing in a conversation on that as with this, the general overstepped his bounds by summarily executing an enemy POW. He's in the wrong and should have just sent him to a POW camp.

1. International law and "laws of war" remain (on paper) in their current form; no one has bothered to change the rules before this world war broke out

4. The General does (according to his own national laws and military protocols and rules regarding POWS), have the legal right to order this execution on the spot by invoking a "special circumstances clause," however, in most situations, killing civilians (armed or unarmed) is "frowned upon"

These two points contradict each other. Sure plenty of nations ignore laws of war during war, but saying the laws of war are there and unchanged and saying this country made a law the breaks those law doesn't work. So I'm working that point 1 supersedes point 4 thus am ignoring it for the time being.

so its saying international law says one thing, the national law says another (so for example, maybe the national laws would label the kid in this case as a "captured insurgent" and leave the legal room/shot-calling for the General to have him executed)

the idea is that there is some sort of mechanism for the General to invoke national law to justify his actions; the exact mechanism isn't hammered out

[Infected Mushroom]

Killing a person that has been caught and cannot reasonably do further harm is immoral.

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

[Bombadil]

Killing a person that has been caught and cannot reasonably do further harm is immoral.

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

Well we could shoot anyone with that line of reasoning.

[Infected Mushroom]

he could always escape/be rescued at a later point and resume the war/insurgency against you for instance

Well we could shoot anyone with that line of reasoning.

we could but should we?

[Heloin]

So basically the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but he's aged down and he took a shot at the general? I'd say the same thing in a conversation on that as with this, the general overstepped his bounds by summarily executing an enemy POW. He's in the wrong and should have just sent him to a POW camp.


These two points contradict each other. Sure plenty of nations ignore laws of war during war, but saying the laws of war are there and unchanged and saying this country made a law the breaks those law doesn't work. So I'm working that point 1 supersedes point 4 thus am ignoring it for the time being.

so its saying international law says one thing, the national law says another (so for example, maybe the national laws would label the kid in this case as a "captured insurgent" and leave the legal room/shot-calling for the General to have him executed)

the idea is that there is some sort of mechanism for the General to invoke national law to justify his actions; the exact mechanism isn't hammered out

Then if the country were dealing with doesn't follow them, don't mention it.

The General is still basically Nguyễn Ngọc Loan.

[New Bremerton]

I'm not a fan of the UN or international law myself, so this is pretty straightforward for me.

How is this even a moral dilemma? If anyone should be executed on the spot, it's the General for committing an unforgivable war crime (from a strictly moral standpoint) by killing an unarmed civilian minor who no longer poses a threat in a city that has already been secured by his forces, especially if that kid is begging for mercy. If I was a military commander and I found out one of my subordinates ordered the massacre of an entire village, I would personally kill him on the spot, Hellscream-style. How could anyone possibly justify the intentional, premeditated murder of civilians, let alone children? This is my personal red line.

Even if the kid was a soldier, and he would still be a child soldier, he should be held as a POW and treated with dignity and respect until the war's conclusion. Also, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. The kid would be wholly justified in shooting at the General, who has invaded and occupied HIS country and hometown. From his point of view, he is merely doing his patriotic duty and exercising his right to collective self-defense. After all, the General "picked a side".

[Bombadil]

Well we could shoot anyone with that line of reasoning.

we could but should we?

No.

[All are Equal]

Well we could shoot anyone with that line of reasoning.

we could but should we?

Uh, yeah. Why free your enemies DURING hostilities?

[Infected Mushroom]

so its saying international law says one thing, the national law says another (so for example, maybe the national laws would label the kid in this case as a "captured insurgent" and leave the legal room/shot-calling for the General to have him executed)

the idea is that there is some sort of mechanism for the General to invoke national law to justify his actions; the exact mechanism isn't hammered out

Then if the country were dealing with doesn't follow them, don't mention it.

The General is still basically Nguyễn Ngọc Loan.

I genuinely have no idea who that is

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not a fan of the UN or international law myself, so this is pretty straightforward for me.

How is this even a moral dilemma? If anyone should be executed on the spot, it's the General for committing an unforgivable war crime (from a strictly moral standpoint) by killing an unarmed civilian minor who no longer poses a threat in a city that has already been secured by his forces, especially if that kid is begging for mercy. If I was a military commander and I found out one of my subordinates ordered the massacre of an entire village, I would personally kill him on the spot, Hellscream-style. How could anyone possibly justify the intentional, premeditated murder of civilians, let alone children? This is my personal red line.

Even if the kid was a soldier, and he would still be a child soldier, he should be held as a POW and treated with dignity and respect until the war's conclusion. Also, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. The kid would be wholly justified in shooting at the General, who has invaded and occupied HIS country and hometown. From his point of view, he is merely doing his patriotic duty and exercising his right to collective self-defense. After all, the General "picked a side".

my point of view is that the kid was prepared to murder the General, so its completely fair play for the General to execute him instead

it just sounds like justice

the law might say one thing or another, but as far the balance of the universe is concerned, this seems like an acceptable outcome

[Heloin]

Then if the country were dealing with doesn't follow them, don't mention it.

The General is still basically Nguyễn Ngọc Loan.

I genuinely have no idea who that is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution ... n_L%C3%A9m

[New Bremerton]

I'm not a fan of the UN or international law myself, so this is pretty straightforward for me.

How is this even a moral dilemma? If anyone should be executed on the spot, it's the General for committing an unforgivable war crime (from a strictly moral standpoint) by killing an unarmed civilian minor who no longer poses a threat in a city that has already been secured by his forces, especially if that kid is begging for mercy. If I was a military commander and I found out one of my subordinates ordered the massacre of an entire village, I would personally kill him on the spot, Hellscream-style. How could anyone possibly justify the intentional, premeditated murder of civilians, let alone children? This is my personal red line.

Even if the kid was a soldier, and he would still be a child soldier, he should be held as a POW and treated with dignity and respect until the war's conclusion. Also, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. The kid would be wholly justified in shooting at the General, who has invaded and occupied HIS country and hometown. From his point of view, he is merely doing his patriotic duty and exercising his right to collective self-defense. After all, the General "picked a side".

my point of view is that the kid was prepared to murder the General, so its completely fair play for the General to execute him instead

it just sounds like justice

the law might say one thing or another, but as far the balance of the universe is concerned, this seems like an acceptable outcome

So your POV is "take no prisoners, leave no survivors". All POWs, including civilians and children, should be killed merely for doing their patriotic duty. If that's what you unironically believe, then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I'm appalled. And like I said before, I don't care what international law says, or what any law has to say for that matter. Savagely murdering unarmed children begging for mercy is "fair play". I get it.

[Infected Mushroom]

I genuinely have no idea who that is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution ... n_L%C3%A9m

oh

I have seen that photo in a textbook before

[Infected Mushroom]

my point of view is that the kid was prepared to murder the General, so its completely fair play for the General to execute him instead

it just sounds like justice

the law might say one thing or another, but as far the balance of the universe is concerned, this seems like an acceptable outcome

So your POV is "take no prisoners, leave no survivors". All POWs, including civilians and children, should be killed merely for doing their patriotic duty. If that's what you unironically believe, then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I'm appalled. And like I said before, I don't care what international law says, or what any law has to say for that matter. Savagely murdering unarmed children begging for mercy is "fair play". I get it.

In a real war when everyone else is following the rules of war, there's also the pragmatic question of "well what will my allies think? well this OUTRAGE some previously neutral country? How does this make my side of the war look?"

I'd say that is the main consideration for whether you should or shouldn't execute POWs.

assuming a total world war scenario, there is very little value to the rules of war, if its a war of survival then you should focus solely on eliminating enemy threats

[Heloin]

So your POV is "take no prisoners, leave no survivors". All POWs, including civilians and children, should be killed merely for doing their patriotic duty. If that's what you unironically believe, then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I'm appalled. And like I said before, I don't care what international law says, or what any law has to say for that matter. Savagely murdering unarmed children begging for mercy is "fair play". I get it.

In a real war when everyone else is following the rules of war, there's also the pragmatic question of "well what will my allies think? well this OUTRAGE some previously neutral country? How does this make my side of the war look?"

I'd say that is the main consideration for whether you should or shouldn't execute POWs.

assuming a total world war scenario, there is very little value to the rules of war, if its a war of survival then you should focus solely on eliminating enemy threats

The biggest reason the laws of war exist is so that you don't have to worry about the other side doing the same thing to your men. It's like flags of truce, sure you could completely overrun an enemy position by misusing a flag of truce, but then then you're in a situation were you need to surrender or negotiate then the other side has no reason to believe you. There is very little value executing surrendering enemy combatants aside from condemning your own soldiers to die the same fate and possibly even leading to your own people not supporting you.

[Thermodolia]

What a waste of a bullet. You’ve captured him, why waste a bullet to execute him? Lock him up. After you’ve won the war he can be executed

[New Bremerton]

So your POV is "take no prisoners, leave no survivors". All POWs, including civilians and children, should be killed merely for doing their patriotic duty. If that's what you unironically believe, then I don't know what to say. Honestly, I'm appalled. And like I said before, I don't care what international law says, or what any law has to say for that matter. Savagely murdering unarmed children begging for mercy is "fair play". I get it.

In a real war when everyone else is following the rules of war, there's also the pragmatic question of "well what will my allies think? well this OUTRAGE some previously neutral country? How does this make my side of the war look?"

I'd say that is the main consideration for whether you should or shouldn't execute POWs.

assuming a total world war scenario, there is very little value to the rules of war, if its a war of survival then you should focus solely on eliminating enemy threats

That's a very cynical way of assessing human nature. Even if what you say is true, that most people only selfishly care about their reputations rather than having any sort of innate moral compass that prevents them from perpetrating such atrocities, that still doesn't make it right per se. I would hate to think that most people are actually that heartless deep down. It would make me seriously question my faith in humanity. Now if we were discussing a situation in which the General is legally compelled to kill civilians under pain of execution i.e. "I was just following orders", that would be a different matter.

[Page]

I would ask the general what he would have done if he were a 15 year old kid and a foreign army occupied his country. There aren't good guys and bad guys in war and there's no need to kill a disarmed person, kid or adult.

[Thermodolia]

I would ask the general what he would have done if he were a 15 year old kid and a foreign army occupied his country. There aren't good guys and bad guys in war and there's no need to kill a disarmed person, kid or adult.

You say that there aren’t good guys or bad guys in a war but I disagree. The Nazis where definitely evil.

[Infected Mushroom]

What a waste of a bullet. You’ve captured him, why waste a bullet to execute him? Lock him up. After you’ve won the war he can be executed

isn't it going to cost more in resources to keep him alive over time?

[Infected Mushroom]

In a real war when everyone else is following the rules of war, there's also the pragmatic question of "well what will my allies think? well this OUTRAGE some previously neutral country? How does this make my side of the war look?"

I'd say that is the main consideration for whether you should or shouldn't execute POWs.

assuming a total world war scenario, there is very little value to the rules of war, if its a war of survival then you should focus solely on eliminating enemy threats

That's a very cynical way of assessing human nature. Even if what you say is true, that most people only selfishly care about their reputations rather than having any sort of innate moral compass that prevents them from perpetrating such atrocities, that still doesn't make it right per se. I would hate to think that most people are actually that heartless deep down. It would make me seriously question my faith in humanity. Now if we were discussing a situation in which the General is legally compelled to kill civilians under pain of execution i.e. "I was just following orders", that would be a different matter.

its a case by case basis

i mean if you just take over a town and then decide "let's execute all the civilians to establish myself as someone to be feared" then I would say that sounds like a borderline villain play

but if its more along the lines of "well he just tried to kill me, now the tables are turned... he's technically a 'civilian' now but I'll kill him as retribution" then that sounds to me like Fair Play