The General and the Kid

[Dogmeat]

No to executing POWs.

[Risottia]

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

Yea, just like any other generic POW: that doesn't make killing people who have been caught or who have surrendered fine. The kid's not a leader or a flag behind which insurgents could rally. He can be just safely interned in a POW camp until the end of the war.

[Dogmeat]

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

Yea, just like any other generic POW: that doesn't make killing people who have been caught or who have surrendered fine. The kid's not a leader or a flag behind which insurgents could rally. He can be just safely interned in a POW camp until the end of the war.

Well, he wasn't a flag behind which insurgents could rally. There's a good chance he will be after you've executed him.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

Yea, just like any other generic POW: that doesn't make killing people who have been caught or who have surrendered fine. The kid's not a leader or a flag behind which insurgents could rally. He can be just safely interned in a POW camp until the end of the war.

its not fine under current international agreements and current rules of engagement on a formal level

but I don't see why it couldn't be considered fine if we had decided otherwise instead (for instance, in an alternate universe where we never codified rules of war to protect the surrendered)

I'm not sure why we can't execute people who have surrendered if we decide that it benefits the war effort (after calculating everything including political ramifications)

in THIS case, I think the moral outrage will be minimal considering the kid just tried to kill the General. I mean, it just comes across as fair play to me

[Ausinia]

That really isn’t morale at all. It’s a captured minor, it isn’t cowardice to not kill them or order their death. Instead it should show that you shouldn’t kill unless where needed

[The Grims]

Why did the general not shoot the boy himself ?

[Infected Mushroom]

Why did the general not shoot the boy himself ?

I'm not sure

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Fighting in a war is immoral. By extention this also is.

[The New California Republic]

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

Yup. The Geneva Conventions would very likely class this kid as a POW. The General has just opened himself up to accusations of war crimes, but if this is his attitude to a child then I imagine that he has committed war crimes in the conflict already.

[Ausinia]

Fighting in a war is immoral. By extention this also is.

It depends on your justifications for doing so, while I personally would never want to shoot someone or shoot at someone, if it means I save that family over their, sure, I might help them out

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure why we can't execute people who have surrendered if we decide that it benefits the war effort

Because it is a fucking war crime. Executing people who have surrendered is also counterproductive in the long run, as news of that shit will spread; it will lead to soldiers deciding to fight to the death instead of surrendering, since they will know death will follow in any event. Warfare would become a lot more bloody as a result.

But this attitude does not surprise me in the least, since Holocaust apologism has also been evident recently.

[Great Nortend]

I ascribe to the notion that attempted murder justifies the death penalty. Therefore while there may be moral doubts about such a summary sentence, there is no moral problem with executing the child provided that the given facts are true.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I ascribe to the notion that attempted murder justifies the death penalty. Therefore while there may be moral doubts about such a summary sentence, there is no moral problem with executing the child provided that the given facts are true.

Nothing at all can ever justify the death penalty.

[Ausinia]

I ascribe to the notion that attempted murder justifies the death penalty. Therefore while there may be moral doubts about such a summary sentence, there is no moral problem with executing the child provided that the given facts are true.

Nothing at all can ever justify the death penalty.

Exactly

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure why we can't execute people who have surrendered if we decide that it benefits the war effort

Because it is a fucking war crime. Executing people who have surrendered is also counterproductive in the long run, as news of that shit will spread; it will lead to soldiers deciding to fight to the death instead of surrendering, since they will know death will follow in any event. Warfare would become a lot more bloody as a result.

But this attitude does not surprise me in the least, since Holocaust apologism has also been evident recently.

I agree that as the laws currently stand, it is a war crime

but I don't see why it isn't justified in some circumstances (i.e. if its a calculated move that benefits the war effort situationally and/or a situation where it is "fair play" like in the hypothetical)

I specifically invite the posters to explore the morality of the action as a whole (you don't HAVE to focus exclusively on the legality of the action, I understand for some people, their morality is more law-based than others)

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Because it is a fucking war crime. Executing people who have surrendered is also counterproductive in the long run, as news of that shit will spread; it will lead to soldiers deciding to fight to the death instead of surrendering, since they will know death will follow in any event. Warfare would become a lot more bloody as a result.

But this attitude does not surprise me in the least, since Holocaust apologism has also been evident recently.

I agree that as the laws currently stand, it is a war crime

but I don't see why it isn't justified in some circumstances (i.e. if its a calculated move that benefits the war effort situationally and/or a situation where it is "fair play" like in the hypothetical)

I specifically invite the posters to explore the morality of the action as a whole (you don't HAVE to focus exclusively on the legality of the action, I understand for some people, their morality is more law-based than others)

In my opinion the aiding of the war effort is no justification for killing people who have surrendered.

[The Grims]

I ascribe to the notion that attempted murder justifies the death penalty. Therefore while there may be moral doubts about such a summary sentence, there is no moral problem with executing the child provided that the given facts are true.

Since one of the givens in this scenario is that the general has murdered people, why would the action of the boy not count as a botched attempt at justified execution ?

[Infected Mushroom]

I agree that as the laws currently stand, it is a war crime

but I don't see why it isn't justified in some circumstances (i.e. if its a calculated move that benefits the war effort situationally and/or a situation where it is "fair play" like in the hypothetical)

I specifically invite the posters to explore the morality of the action as a whole (you don't HAVE to focus exclusively on the legality of the action, I understand for some people, their morality is more law-based than others)

In my opinion the aiding of the war effort is no justification for killing people who have surrendered.

so if I kill thousands of your soldiers and then get myself in a tight spot, I can simply "surrender" and expect 100% protection? even if I might later escape/be rescued and rejoin the war as a combatant against you?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

In my opinion the aiding of the war effort is no justification for killing people who have surrendered.

so if I kill thousands of your soldiers and then get myself in a tight spot, I can simply "surrender" and expect 100% protection? even if I might later escape/be rescued and rejoin the war as a combatant against you?

Yes, because you aren't currently a danger, having surrendered.

[Infected Mushroom]

so if I kill thousands of your soldiers and then get myself in a tight spot, I can simply "surrender" and expect 100% protection? even if I might later escape/be rescued and rejoin the war as a combatant against you?

Yes, because you aren't currently a danger, having surrendered.

but I could be again?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Yes, because you aren't currently a danger, having surrendered.

but I could be again?

The law is not asked to read the future.

[The Grims]

but I could be again?

The law is not asked to read the future.

So again: why is the kid not allowed to execute the general for his crimes ?

[Great Nortend]

I ascribe to the notion that attempted murder justifies the death penalty. Therefore while there may be moral doubts about such a summary sentence, there is no moral problem with executing the child provided that the given facts are true.

Nothing at all can ever justify the death penalty.

Certainly in practice very few cases would 100% justify the death penalty. However from a moral standpoint I believe the death penalty in completely justified in cases of murder, attempted murder or treason.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The law is not asked to read the future.

So again: why is the kid not allowed to execute the general for his crimes ?

Honestly, I don't know. The general was posing a danger, and in a war situation I guess it's far more acceptable than the opposite way around. But still I don't like capital punishment, however I get that the kid had no ability to imprison or otherwise punish the general. The general had that ability with the kid.

[The New California Republic]

Because it is a fucking war crime. Executing people who have surrendered is also counterproductive in the long run, as news of that shit will spread; it will lead to soldiers deciding to fight to the death instead of surrendering, since they will know death will follow in any event. Warfare would become a lot more bloody as a result.

But this attitude does not surprise me in the least, since Holocaust apologism has also been evident recently.

I agree that as the laws currently stand, it is a war crime

but I don't see why it isn't justified in some circumstances (i.e. if its a calculated move that benefits the war effort situationally and/or a situation where it is "fair play" like in the hypothetical)

Because it is counterproductive, I have already said that. During the Ardennes Offensive the SS massacred American POWs, and it galvanised the resolve of the Allies to defeat the Axis, and even led to the ultimately unjustifiable scenario of SS soldiers being shot after being captured by the Allies. As soon as you introduce a policy of shooting POWs it rapidly spirals out of control as both sides start to engage in that behavior.

And it isn't "fair play" at all. It takes a hell of a stretch of the imagination to say that killing unarmed and pacified POWs is "fair play".