The General and the Kid

[The New California Republic]

But not if he surrenders.

surrendering is just saying:

"Hey I'm not going to fight anymore, here, I drop my weapons. I hope you will take me as a prisoner."

Its a statement of hope.

No. It is a statement that binds the POW and their captors to The Geneva Conventions. Killing someone after they have surrendered is a war crime. Please IM, just stop clawing at loopholes to try to justify murdering POWs.

[Alvecia]

That general moral principles would see summary execution of the entire army that was defeated. Or at the very least, every soldier that fired their weapon with intent to kill. Which given the scale of this war in your scenario, would be a significant proportion of said army.
Do you disagree?

hence at some point, when we reach a certain threshold, we would have to curtail/restrict the principle

I'm not sure where that point should be

A principle inconsistently applied is no principle at all.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not sure to what extent this can be extracted to form a general moral principle, other than maybe "if you tried to kill someone, then you should, on some level, be prepared to die for it if it ends badly"

The general who went to an active warzone should accept that people will try to shot him and not get angry and execute POWs for having done exactly that.

what you describe, would work out for the benefit of the insurgent and his side

but I'm not really here to take a side, I'm only saying "well the General did X. While it might not have been the wisest course of action and while it might be a tad emotional... it's, given his situation, understandable and reasonable. Hence, I fell its within the scope/range of morally acceptable outcomes."

[Infected Mushroom]

hence at some point, when we reach a certain threshold, we would have to curtail/restrict the principle

I'm not sure where that point should be

A principle inconsistently applied is no principle at all.

many principles generally have a cut off point

[Infected Mushroom]

surrendering is just saying:

"Hey I'm not going to fight anymore, here, I drop my weapons. I hope you will take me as a prisoner."

Its a statement of hope.

No. It is a statement that binds the POW and their captors to The Geneva Conventions. Killing someone after they have surrendered is a war crime. Please IM, just stop clawing at loopholes to try to justify murdering POWs.

I think that's a statement about legality (but not necessarily, morality).

[Heloin]

The general who went to an active warzone should accept that people will try to shot him and not get angry and execute POWs for having done exactly that.

what you describe, would work out for the benefit of the insurgent and his side

but I'm not really here to take a side, I'm only saying "well the General did X. While it might not have been the wisest course of action and while it might be a tad emotional... it's, given his situation, understandable and reasonable. Hence, I fell its within the scope/range of morally acceptable outcomes."

You did take a side. You always take sides and pretend you didn't. You think the general was in the right or atleast justified, that's a side

[Ifreann]

The specific situation is the same as the one you described, with the one difference that the shot was fired from the open and not from a hidden position.

I don't think I would personally take issue if the general decided to execute him

So you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

[Infected Mushroom]

what you describe, would work out for the benefit of the insurgent and his side

but I'm not really here to take a side, I'm only saying "well the General did X. While it might not have been the wisest course of action and while it might be a tad emotional... it's, given his situation, understandable and reasonable. Hence, I fell its within the scope/range of morally acceptable outcomes."

You did take a side. You always take sides and pretend you didn't. You think the general was in the right or atleast justified, that's a side

but if the insurgent had succeeded in killing the general, I would probably have said:

"hey it wasn't clean, but this was a war and he was shooting at an invader"

so it also would have come across as a morally acceptable outcome

[The New California Republic]

No. It is a statement that binds the POW and their captors to The Geneva Conventions. Killing someone after they have surrendered is a war crime. Please IM, just stop clawing at loopholes to try to justify murdering POWs.

I think that's a statement about legality (but not necessarily, morality).

The Geneva Conventions are codified battlefield morality. Murdering POWs after they have surrendered is immoral.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't think I would personally take issue if the general decided to execute him

So you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

I would say its within the range of morally acceptable actions (but not necessarily "moral" because I would say "moral" has connotations of being "morally praiseworthy"), I make no comments on the praiseworthiness (or lack thereof)

[Alvecia]

A principle inconsistently applied is no principle at all.

many principles generally have a cut off point

A principle is quite literally defined as :

“A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning”

A principle that is not always applied is not a principle, it’s a suggestion. A guideline at best.

[Heloin]

You did take a side. You always take sides and pretend you didn't. You think the general was in the right or atleast justified, that's a side

but if the insurgent had succeeded in killing the general, I would probably have said:

"hey it wasn't clean, but this was a war and he was shooting at an invader"

so it also would have come across as a morally acceptable outcome

No you wouldn't have. You would have been calling them just as "dishonourable" as you have been now.

[Ifreann]

So you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

I would say its within the range of morally acceptable actions (but not necessarily "moral" because I would say "moral" has connotations of being "morally praiseworthy"), I make no comments on the praiseworthiness (or lack thereof)

Understanding that by "moral" you don't mean "morally praiseworthy", you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

[Caracasus]

The general should be immediately arrested and incarcerated awaiting trial for war crimes. Probably as well as anyone else who followed the general's orders and executed the assassin.

In this scenario it's abundently clear that the general has access to the means to secure and imprison this would be assassin, so there's no moral justification for his actions whatsoever.

[Infected Mushroom]

many principles generally have a cut off point

A principle is quite literally defined as :

“A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning”

A principle that is not always applied is not a principle, it’s a suggestion. A guideline at best.

I feel like this is a linguistic loophole.

For instance, if I said "X applies except when A, B, and C happen."

One interpretation is, "Well this isn't a principle... because when A, B, and C happen, X somehow magically isn't applied."

Another is, "It is a principle. The entire statement of the principle is not merely 'X applies' its actually 'X applies except when A, B, and C happens.'"

So the exceptions are built into a complete statement of the principle.

But because language is unwieldy, no single statement of the principle can reasonably be expected to account for the thousands of specifics and exceptions.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would say its within the range of morally acceptable actions (but not necessarily "moral" because I would say "moral" has connotations of being "morally praiseworthy"), I make no comments on the praiseworthiness (or lack thereof)

Understanding that by "moral" you don't mean "morally praiseworthy", you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

it doesn't by itself, determine the outcome if that's what you mean

but it does add to the list of factors that point towards execution as a morally acceptable outcome

[Infected Mushroom]

but if the insurgent had succeeded in killing the general, I would probably have said:

"hey it wasn't clean, but this was a war and he was shooting at an invader"

so it also would have come across as a morally acceptable outcome

No you wouldn't have. You would have been calling them just as "dishonourable" as you have been now.

something can be dishonourable but still be in the range of morally acceptable outcomes

[Alvecia]

A principle is quite literally defined as :

“A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning”

A principle that is not always applied is not a principle, it’s a suggestion. A guideline at best.

I feel like this is a linguistic loophole.

For instance, if I said "X applies except when A, B, and C happen."

One interpretation is, "Well this isn't a principle... because when A, B, and C happen, X somehow magically isn't applied."

Another is, "It is a principle. The entire statement of the principle is not merely 'X applies' its actually 'X applies except when A, B, and C happens.'"

So the exceptions are built into a complete statement of the principle.

But because language is unwieldy, no single statement of the principle can reasonably be expected to account for the thousands of specifics and exceptions.

All you’ve done is explain the difference between a principle and a suggestion. A principle does not take into account exceptions or nuance. A suggestion does.
If your principle has exceptions, it’s not a principle.

[Caracasus]

Understanding that by "moral" you don't mean "morally praiseworthy", you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

it doesn't by itself, determine the outcome if that's what you mean

but it does add to the list of factors that point towards execution as a morally acceptable outcome

The general has the resources to effectively secure the would be assassin. He chose to have him executed. There's no way in hell that this is a morally acceptable outcome.

[The New California Republic]

Understanding that by "moral" you don't mean "morally praiseworthy", you do think it's moral. So it doesn't matter either way whether the prisoner fired from a hidden position or whether they fired from the open, the morality of them being executed is the same.

it doesn't by itself, determine the outcome if that's what you mean

but it does add to the list of factors that point towards execution as a morally acceptable outcome

And again you keep harping on about factors that makes murdering POWs morally acceptable without telling us what they are.

[Infected Mushroom]

I feel like this is a linguistic loophole.

For instance, if I said "X applies except when A, B, and C happen."

One interpretation is, "Well this isn't a principle... because when A, B, and C happen, X somehow magically isn't applied."

Another is, "It is a principle. The entire statement of the principle is not merely 'X applies' its actually 'X applies except when A, B, and C happens.'"

So the exceptions are built into a complete statement of the principle.

But because language is unwieldy, no single statement of the principle can reasonably be expected to account for the thousands of specifics and exceptions.

All you’ve done is explain the difference between a principle and a suggestion. A principle does not take into account exceptions or nuance. A suggestion does.
If your principle has exceptions, it’s not a principle.

I'm suggesting that one view of principles, is that all principles, in their complete statement, would include all of the seemingly infinite specific exceptions to them.

but as humans, we don't have the language tools or the cognitive capacity to really state all principles in their truest forms

[Alvecia]

All you’ve done is explain the difference between a principle and a suggestion. A principle does not take into account exceptions or nuance. A suggestion does.
If your principle has exceptions, it’s not a principle.

I'm suggesting that one view of principles, is that all principles, in their complete statement, would include all of the seemingly infinite specific exceptions to them.

but as humans, we don't have the language tools or the cognitive capacity to really state all principles in their truest forms

Again, that’s not a principle. A principle is a fundamental truth. If a principle has exceptions it is not fundamentally true.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm suggesting that one view of principles, is that all principles, in their complete statement, would include all of the seemingly infinite specific exceptions to them.

but as humans, we don't have the language tools or the cognitive capacity to really state all principles in their truest forms

Again, that’s not a principle. A principle is a fundamental truth. If a principle has exceptions it is not fundamentally true.

So let's take a statement that has a single exception. For instance:

"A Lannister Should Always Pays His Debts... except where the debt is a purely political one."

You're saying:

"It's not a principle. Its a suggestion. It SUGGESTS that a Lannister should pay all debts. But because there is a single exception, then it can't be an all-encompassing principle."

I'm saying:

"It's a principle because the ENTIRE statement of the principle is not merely 'A Lannister Should Always Pay His Debts", the ENTIRE statement is in fact '"A Lannister Should Always Pays His Debts... except where the debt is a purely political one.'"

I've included all the exceptions into the statement of Principle. You're viewing exceptions as fundamentally separate, for me this is not necessarily the case.

I'm suggesting that all statements of Principles are incomplete because with most of them, there are myriads of exceptions (that we can't all account for) but should in fact (if language were perfect) be included in a compete statement thereof.

[Caracasus]

it doesn't by itself, determine the outcome if that's what you mean

but it does add to the list of factors that point towards execution as a morally acceptable outcome

And again you keep harping on about factors that makes murdering POWs morally acceptable without telling us what they are.

That is because there are none. The OP tells us that the general has secured the city, that he has an army and therefore has all the resources he needs to inprison the would be assassin. There's zero justification.

[The New California Republic]

Again, that’s not a principle. A principle is a fundamental truth. If a principle has exceptions it is not fundamentally true.

So let's take a statement that has a single exception. For instance:

"A Lannister Should Always Pays His Debts... except where the debt is a purely political one."

You're saying:

"It's not a principle. Its a suggestion. It SUGGESTS that a Lannister should pay all debts. But because there is a single exception, then it can't be an all-encompassing principle."

I'm saying:

"It's a principle because the ENTIRE statement of the principle is not merely 'A Lannister Should Always Pay His Debts", the ENTIRE statement is in fact '"A Lannister Should Always Pays His Debts... except where the debt is a purely political one.'"

I've included all the exceptions into the statement of Principle. You're viewing exceptions as fundamentally separate, for me this is not necessarily the case.

I'm suggesting that all statements of Principles are incomplete because with most of them, there are myriads of exceptions (that we can't all account for) but should in fact (if language were perfect) be included in a compete statement thereof.

GoT probably goes a long way towards explaining why you view murdering unarmed POWs as morally acceptable.

---

And again you keep harping on about factors that makes murdering POWs morally acceptable without telling us what they are.

That is because there are none. The OP tells us that the general has secured the city, that he has an army and therefore has all the resources he needs to inprison the would be assassin. There's zero justification.

Indeed. But I would at least like to hear what the OP thinks that they are. But alas...