The General and the Kid

[Internationalist Bastard]

If you have the choice between removing a partisan peacefully or by killing that’s the easiest moral question in history

its less about which is the best option vs which option(s) are acceptable... and I feel that both options fit within the range of acceptable actions

Essentially your choice is to let a person live or kill them
That’s not a moral question that’s do you kill the person you don’t have to

[Infected Mushroom]

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

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

[Alvecia]

That was his action yes, but what’s the reasoning behind finding killing him and imprisoning him morally equivalent?

they are both forms of proportional retribution for the attempted act

You are saying that imprisonment and execution are equivalent punishments?

[Infected Mushroom]

its less about which is the best option vs which option(s) are acceptable... and I feel that both options fit within the range of acceptable actions

Essentially your choice is to let a person live or kill them
That’s not a moral question that’s do you kill the person you don’t have to

James Bond can allow his enemies to live, but we generally don't condemn his actions when he kills

[Infected Mushroom]

they are both forms of proportional retribution for the attempted act

You are saying that imprisonment and execution are equivalent punishments?

sometimes

[The Free Joy State]

Then send him to a POW camp because that's the only one that is morally justifiable no matter how much you think they're equal choices.

i don't object to him being sent to a POW camp either, I just think its an acceptable outcome for him to be summarily executed too because of what he did

the legality of the General's action isn't really my concern, only the morality of it, and I think that some measure of retribution (if proportional) against an illegal combatant seems to me to be reasonable

What this kid was shoot at one general -- and miss. The general was unharmed. In order to win a war, the general would have shot at hundreds, or thousands of sergeants, corporals, and generals and hit his target.

If the general had lost, would it be acceptable for the other side to summarily execute him? For what would have been multitudinous deaths?

Why concern yourself so much with the actions of one disarmed minor boy?

And to answer the question, his actions were illegal and immoral:
1. The boy was a minor
2. He had been disarmed and was no longer a threat
3. Disarmed enemy combatants belong in POW camps and should not be summarily shot (only brutal regimes shoot unarmed people, and especially children, or summarily execute people without trial -- and the Geneva Convention is clear on that. The U.N. is also clear that everyone has a right to a fair trial-- article 6).
4. The U.N. also has special guidelines about protections for children under 18 in military settings and prohibits any child under 18 being sentenced to the death penalty (article 37 of the Convention for the Rights of a Child)

[The New California Republic]

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

Conveniently ignoring my earlier post I see. Clearly the IM morality train is on the POW murdering rails and sees no reason to deviate. You have been repeatedly told that The Geneva Conventions apply, just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they are magically going to go away.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Essentially your choice is to let a person live or kill them
That’s not a moral question that’s do you kill the person you don’t have to

James Bond can allow his enemies to live, but we generally don't condemn his actions when he kills

James Bond is a philandering asshole fictional charecter we watch because he’s in a bunch of cool movies
War is real

[Alvecia]

You are saying that imprisonment and execution are equivalent punishments?

sometimes

How so? Compare the two for me.

[The New California Republic]

3. Disarmed enemy combatants belong in POW camps and should not be summarily shot (only brutal regimes shoot unarmed people, and especially children without trial -- and the Geneva Convention is clear on that. The U.N. is also clear that everyone has a right to a fair trial-- article 6).
4. The U.N. also has special guidelines about protections for children under 18 in military settings and prohibits any child under 18 being sentenced to the death penalty (article 37 of the Convention for the Rights of a Child)

I've already tried that for several pages. IM says that he doesn't care about it that much:

I'm much less interested in the international law standing of the action than you are

So trying to convince him otherwise is a lost cause.

[Heloin]

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)

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.

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...

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.

and as someone else said, the fact that he's on the whole an illegal combatant/terrorist makes it a special kind of situation

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

[Infected Mushroom]

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

Conveniently ignoring my earlier post I see. Clearly the IM morality train is on the POW murdering rails and sees no reason to deviate. You have been repeatedly told that The Geneva Conventions apply, just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they are magically going to go away.

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

[Heloin]

Conveniently ignoring my earlier post I see. Clearly the IM morality train is on the POW murdering rails and sees no reason to deviate. You have been repeatedly told that The Geneva Conventions apply, just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they are magically going to go away.

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

The situation is illegal because it's immoral. Next question.

[The Free Joy State]

3. Disarmed enemy combatants belong in POW camps and should not be summarily shot (only brutal regimes shoot unarmed people, and especially children without trial -- and the Geneva Convention is clear on that. The U.N. is also clear that everyone has a right to a fair trial-- article 6).
4. The U.N. also has special guidelines about protections for children under 18 in military settings and prohibits any child under 18 being sentenced to the death penalty (article 37 of the Convention for the Rights of a Child)

I've already tried that for several pages. IM says that he doesn't care about it that much:

I'm much less interested in the international law standing of the action than you are

So trying to convince him otherwise is a lost cause.

Oh, I've seen that. I have no hope of convincing him otherwise.

I'm just listing why the general's actions are flatly -- purely from a legal perspective -- illegal and immoral and why I agree with the assessment that they are immoral and illegal.

[Risottia]

The "special circumstances" are really the same circumstances as every surrender in war time. There's nothing special about it.

he tried to shoot the general though

He can be lawfully indicted for attempted murder, imprisoned while waiting for trial, and tried according to law with a right to defense.
His defense will reason that shooting the general was a legitimate act of war against the military of an occupying force.

[The New California Republic]

Conveniently ignoring my earlier post I see. Clearly the IM morality train is on the POW murdering rails and sees no reason to deviate. You have been repeatedly told that The Geneva Conventions apply, just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they are magically going to go away.

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

Oh my fucking God this is difficult. I have already told you that The Geneva Conventions are codified battlefield morality, they did not get pulled out of someone's arse one day for the sole purpose of shits and giggles.

[Infected Mushroom]

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)

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.

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...

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.

and as someone else said, the fact that he's on the whole an illegal combatant/terrorist makes it a special kind of situation

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. 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.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Conveniently ignoring my earlier post I see. Clearly the IM morality train is on the POW murdering rails and sees no reason to deviate. You have been repeatedly told that The Geneva Conventions apply, just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they are magically going to go away.

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

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

[Infected Mushroom]

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

Oh my fucking God this is difficult. I have already told you that The Geneva Conventions are codified battlefield morality, they did not get pulled out of someone's arse one day for the sole purpose of shits and giggles.

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.

[Vanquaria]

Immolation

[Infected Mushroom]

the Geneva Conventions speaks to the legality of the situation, but not necessarily to the morality thereof

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.

[Alvecia]

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. 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.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

Here, let me try another path of explaining this
Anime
Have you played Dangerompa?

[The New California Republic]

Oh my fucking God this is difficult. I have already told you that The Geneva Conventions are codified battlefield morality, they did not get pulled out of someone's arse one day for the sole purpose of shits and giggles.

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:

you could send him to a POW camp, I just find that both options are on the morally acceptable side

its less about which is the best option vs which option(s) are acceptable... and I feel that both options fit within the range of acceptable actions

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

[Ethel mermania]

He is still subject to military jurisdiction, which keeps summary execution on the table.

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.