The General and the Kid

[Infected Mushroom]

He surrendered, his fate is then in the hands of the general. The general made a choice.

Again, perhaps it would have been more honourable (a better act even) to forgive or to treat him like a normal POW. However, the general chose to execute him.

I don't praise him for it. I consider it a tragedy of sorts. But nevertheless, to me the action, while not in accordance with international law, falls within the range of morally acceptable actions. It's not praiseworthy, its not pretty... but on the whole, it feels balanced. If you hide somewhere, take a gun, and tried to murder someone... it's not imbalanced for you to (upon being stopped and captured) to be in turn taken out. I mean, I believe its understood to be part of the risk. He voluntarily chose to enter this war as an insurgent.

Notably, the actions are rather imbalanced.
The kid did not actually kill the general, and attempted to do so from some distance with what is presumably little skill, given that he missed.
Your “balanced” response to this is to capture and summarily execute the kid.
If it were a truly balanced situation, then the kid would have the same survival chance as the general.

its balanced in the same sense that the death penalty can be considered balanced in some situations even where the victim survives

in ancient times if you attempted to kill a princess (but failed to do so) and were captured, execution would be seen as a balanced response; historically, the death penalty wasn't only used in cases where the victims were actually successfully killed

[Internationalist Bastard]

Summary executions are illegal.

Not all the time, there are circumstances where they are still legal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution

Now whether this situation fits, I need to look at further.

Legally you can’t execute child soldiers

[Heloin]

No, he took war personally and took revenge for no other reason but to make himself feel better. His choice was horrible and he is scum for such a choice.


Your ignorance of war in general continues to surprise me. Snipers have long been considered legitimate parts of war and taking out the chain of command is a great idea. There is a reason why officers no longer wear service dress or rank insignia on there uniforms anymore, you don't make yourself a target.


No it doesn't. He would be considered a partisan and has surrendered.

He surrendered, his fate is then in the hands of the general. The general made a choice.

Again, perhaps it would have been more honourable (a better act even) to forgive or to treat him like a normal POW. However, the general chose to execute him.

I don't praise him for it. I consider it a tragedy of sorts. But nevertheless, to me the action, while not in accordance with international law, falls within the range of morally acceptable actions. It's not praiseworthy, its not pretty... but on the whole, it feels balanced.

Honour doesn't come into this. You are agreeing that the general made a choice and his choice was horrible. He was immoral, his choice was immoral.

If you hide somewhere, take a gun, and tried to murder someone... it's not imbalanced for you to (upon being stopped and captured) to be in turn taken out. I mean, I believe its understood to be part of the risk. He voluntarily chose to enter this war as an insurgent.

If you attempted to escape will being captured sure the soldiers can take you out, your fleeing and are still a threat. It doesn't matter if they're the highest general in the enemy army or the lowliest insurgent taking pot shots from a roof, they have surrendered.

[Infected Mushroom]

I never said it wasn't codified.

The thing is, I don't see laws as 100% overlapping with morality. I get that the Geneva Conventions is what the powers that be (in our timeline) have decided the rules should be. But I don't believe the rules cover the exact extent of the total range of morally acceptable actions.

I didn't want to have to post this again, but here you go, as it obviously didn't hit home the first time that morality and the law go hand in hand as far as murdering POWs goes:

I'm not really seeing your point

[The New California Republic]

(Image)

I'm not really seeing your point

Then there really is no point in trying anymore to show you how imprisoning a unarmed and pacified POW and executing an unarmed and pacified POW are not morally equivalent, it is clearly a lost cause. But, as I have said before, the Holocaust apologism doesn't make that particularly surprising.

[Ifreann]

Ok the fucking morality of it which I'm talking about. He was a combatant in a combat zone who took a shot at a legitimate target. He was then rightly chased down by soldiers of the force opposing him. If they had shot and killed him while he was running away that would be fine, him escaping would make him a continued threat therefor morally a legitimate target. He instead surrenders and is taken prisoner. At this point he is a threat to no one and can do no one any harm. Anything the general does after this has nothing to do with morals but his own twisted desire for revenge.

The general took the risk that there may still be enemy combatants in the newly captured city, thus when someone trying to kill a general takes a shot the general is equally at fault if that assassination had succeeded. Frankly this sounds like a hotheaded terrible general who probably needless wastes the life of those under his command.

the general may not have acted wisely, but his action (using his powers to enact retribution that is, generally speaking, quite proportional to the attempted killing) is in my view within the range of morally acceptable actions (not the most commendable nor the wisest perhaps but its in the range of what is acceptable)

it is true that the kid may no longer be a threat for the moment, but he acted dishonourably (opening fire on a general from a hidden position), I think this may be similar to the summary execution of snipers... and as someone else said, the fact that he's on the whole an illegal combatant/terrorist makes it a special kind of situation

There is no summary execution of snipers.

I notice that this point about firing from a hidden position is only showing up in your posts now. The answer you first posted to this scenario is:

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.

It seems like you are finding that your initial position is untenable, but instead of changing your mind you're trying to find new reasons to come to the same answer. I would conclude that you are emotionally invested in it being moral to execute people who have surrendered. You will, I suspect, just keep shifting the reasons you give for why this is acceptable until we all get bored with this thread.

[Alvecia]

Notably, the actions are rather imbalanced.
The kid did not actually kill the general, and attempted to do so from some distance with what is presumably little skill, given that he missed.
Your “balanced” response to this is to capture and summarily execute the kid.
If it were a truly balanced situation, then the kid would have the same survival chance as the general.

its balanced in the same sense that the death penalty can be considered balanced in some situations even where the victim survives

in ancient times if you attempted to kill a princess (but failed to do so) and were captured, execution would be seen as a balanced response; historically, the death penalty wasn't only used in cases where the victims were actually successfully killed

Well then, that’s not balanced then is it?

Appeals to Antiquity are fallacious. Just cause something happened generations ago, doesn’t necessarily mean it has any bearing on today. For example, drug use (something I know you aren’t keen on) goes as far back as antiquity.

[The Free Joy State]

And as I said it’s morally wrong since you literally don’t have to kill him

I agree that you don't HAVE to kill him, perhaps you shouldn't kill him (because it could prove counter productive perhaps). But is it ACCEPTABLE to kill him? I think it does pass that test.

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

[Infected Mushroom]

its balanced in the same sense that the death penalty can be considered balanced in some situations even where the victim survives

in ancient times if you attempted to kill a princess (but failed to do so) and were captured, execution would be seen as a balanced response; historically, the death penalty wasn't only used in cases where the victims were actually successfully killed

Well then, that’s not balanced then is it?

Appeals to Antiquity are fallacious. Just cause something happened generations ago, doesn’t necessarily mean it has any bearing on today. For example, drug use (something I know you aren’t keen on) goes as far back as antiquity.

I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

[The New California Republic]

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.

It seems like you are finding that your initial position is untenable, but instead of changing your mind you're trying to find new reasons to come to the same answer. I would conclude that you are emotionally invested in it being moral to execute people who have surrendered. You will, I suspect, just keep shifting the reasons you give for why this is acceptable until we all get bored with this thread.

I got that distinct impression too. There has been some acknowledgement on their part that the act is profoundly illegal, but there is some major cognitive dissonance at work to somehow separate the law from morality; that is the only way that IM's position can even be remotely tenable, and even then it is rapidly collapsing as we speak...

[Infected Mushroom]

I agree that you don't HAVE to kill him, perhaps you shouldn't kill him (because it could prove counter productive perhaps). But is it ACCEPTABLE to kill him? I think it does pass that test.

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

in my view the fact that he shot at the general makes his execution by the general's command, something that falls within the range of what is acceptable; there's a certain amount of, balance in the outcome

[Internationalist Bastard]

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

in my view the fact that he shot at the general makes his execution by the general's command, something that falls within the range of what is acceptable; there's a certain amount of, balance in the outcome

In my point of view the Jedi are evil

[The New California Republic]

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

in my view the fact that he shot at the general makes his execution by the general's command, something that falls within the range of what is acceptable; there's a certain amount of, balance in the outcome

None of what you said makes it morally acceptable.

[Heloin]

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

in my view the fact that he shot at the general makes his execution by the general's command, something that falls within the range of what is acceptable; there's a certain amount of, balance in the outcome

And there is a reason that you shouldn't be in charge of things.

[Alvecia]

Well then, that’s not balanced then is it?

Appeals to Antiquity are fallacious. Just cause something happened generations ago, doesn’t necessarily mean it has any bearing on today. For example, drug use (something I know you aren’t keen on) goes as far back as antiquity.

I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

[Mzeusia]

If he was an adult, I might be more wary of letting him go. Then again, child-soldiers are a thing, and he could still be dangerous. He obviously knows how to fire a gun. I would say that if the enemy is known to be using child-soldiers during the war, then it is morally acceptable to execute him, but if the enemy is not known to be using child-soldiers, executing him is morally wrong and he should be imprisoned instead.

[Estonland]

I would say it is morally justified, as sad the decision might be. The kid tried to kill the general after all

[Page]

Any of us would become insurgents under certain circumstances.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

I would be okay with it

[Infected Mushroom]

If he was an adult, I might be more wary of letting him go. Then again, child-soldiers are a thing, and he could still be dangerous. He obviously knows how to fire a gun. I would say that if the enemy is known to be using child-soldiers during the war, then it is morally acceptable to execute him, but if the enemy is not known to be using child-soldiers, executing him is morally wrong and he should be imprisoned instead.

I see...

[Alvecia]

Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

I would be okay with it

What about if instead of a gun, the kid tried to run him over?

[Heloin]

If he was an adult, I might be more wary of letting him go. Then again, child-soldiers are a thing, and he could still be dangerous. He obviously knows how to fire a gun. I would say that if the enemy is known to be using child-soldiers during the war, then it is morally acceptable to execute him, but if the enemy is not known to be using child-soldiers, executing him is morally wrong and he should be imprisoned instead.

They wouldn't be let go even if they were an adult, they'd be sent to a POW camp.

[The Free Joy State]

If someone has surrendered, and is no longer a combatant, killing them is murder.

Killing an unarmed person is murder.

--> Little old lady walking down the street, the general doesn't like that she's looking sullenly at the invader of her country and shoots her... yep, that's murder.
--> Likewise, this young boy -- fires one impulsive shot in anger and (because he's scared and inexperienced) missed by a mile and immediately surrenders... general doesn't accept the waving white flag as he throws down his firearm and cries "I surrender! Don't shoot! Mercy, please!" -- yes, you guessed it! Still murder!

That's what the law says, and that's what most people's morals say: shooting unarmed people when they beg for mercy is bad. Killing children is bad.

And, I'm not sure why you keep raising that he shot at a general, IM. Why does that inform our decisions?

in my view the fact that he shot at the general makes his execution by the general's command, something that falls within the range of what is acceptable; there's a certain amount of, balance in the outcome

--> Scared boy whose home has been invaded, among a great deal of bloodshed, fires one shot at one general, misses and surrenders, probably messing himself in terror as he begs for mercy
--> Unharmed general who has killed hundreds of other generals and corporals and such on the battlefield then (illegally) orders minor child killed in summary execution.

How is that balanced?

[The New California Republic]

Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

I would be okay with it

The Nazis massacred thousands of captured French Resistance POWs using that same kind of distorted sense of morality. Oh, wait, I forgot:

I see no reason to be concerned about what the Germans did or didn't do in World War II; as it stands, I don't really care

[Heloin]

Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

I would be okay with it

Under this logic the general should be executed immediately for sending soldiers to die in the battlefield. Think of all the lives he wasted by not going out alone with only a sword to face the other general, because honour.