The General and the Kid

[The Free Joy State]

Lousy training is basically as bad as no training, isn't it?

And there's no indication this boy is part of a militia.

There is, however, every indication that the general is doing exactly what I said: criminally disregarding all battle protocols to make a big show of force and terrify local people into submission, seeking revenge on a child!

No matter how much you attempt to turn a child (with, as I said, poor impulse control and -- at best -- terrible training) into some wicked threat who must be stopped, the general is immoral.

Seeking revenge and killing children are immoral acts.

Morality is relative, mate.

What a nice little one-liner.

Perhaps if you'd given me more to work from I couldn't crafted a more fitting response, but here we are:

Yes, there are shades of grey in morality. Killing someone -- even a child -- who is in the process of attacking you and/or your loved ones is acceptable, if restraining them is not possible. Not pretty, certainly not something most people would be proud of or happy about. But acceptable.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my language -- "murdering children", perhaps. Because, when there is no threat, when the person is pacified and their weapon removed, when there is no attack and they are not threatening to attack, when they are under restraint, there is no longer a question of self-defence. That kicks it back to being murder again.

[Kowani]

Morality is relative, mate.

What a nice little one-liner.

Perhaps if you'd given me more to work from I couldn't crafted a more fitting response, but here we are:

Yes, there are shades of grey in morality. Killing someone -- even a child -- who is in the process of attacking you and/or your loved ones is acceptable, if restraining them is not possible. Not pretty, certainly not something most people would be proud of or happy about. But acceptable.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my language -- "murdering children", perhaps. Because, when there is no threat, when the person is pacified and their weapon removed, when there is no attack and they are not threatening to attack, when they are under restraint, there is no longer a question of self-defence. That kicks it back to being murder again.

Now, I don't disagree with you that it's murder. Not my point. But, if I follow my train of thought to it's logical end, there is no reason why murder is morally wrong. And it's important to distinguish that word, morally, because just because there's no reason that it is wrong does not mean that it should be permitted, as a society that allows wonton murder will no survive very long.

[The Free Joy State]

What a nice little one-liner.

Perhaps if you'd given me more to work from I couldn't crafted a more fitting response, but here we are:

Yes, there are shades of grey in morality. Killing someone -- even a child -- who is in the process of attacking you and/or your loved ones is acceptable, if restraining them is not possible. Not pretty, certainly not something most people would be proud of or happy about. But acceptable.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my language -- "murdering children", perhaps. Because, when there is no threat, when the person is pacified and their weapon removed, when there is no attack and they are not threatening to attack, when they are under restraint, there is no longer a question of self-defence. That kicks it back to being murder again.

Now, I don't disagree with you that it's murder. Not my point. But, if I follow my train of thought to it's logical end, there is no reason why murder is morally wrong. And it's important to distinguish that word, morally, because just because there's no reason that it is wrong does not mean that it should be permitted, as a society that allows wonton murder will no survive very long.

I think that our morals are generally informed by millennia of social observations of things that work for society, which are then codified into an internal code called morality and later turned into an external code called law (I mean, laws have also had a number of other influences -- including pseudoscience -- but those have generally been weeded out by better science: and laws against murder, rape, theft, and other socially harmful things are fairly solid, I'd say).

Taking murder as an example (I don't think this is literally how it happened, but just to explain the idea):

--> Our earliest ancestors noticed that, every time they killed someone willy-nilly, their society shrank and they had fewer people to go hunt, meaning it got harder to catch food. One day, the smartest of the bunch says (however s/he expressed it), "I say, old chaps, every time we kill someone for no real reason, it gets harder to hunt. Maybe we should stop doing that..."
--> Then, what began as an observation becomes codified as a way to live: "Don't kill someone without provocation."
--> Over time, it becomes ingrained as a moral, that children are told on parents' knees "It's wrong to murder people."
--> Then, when lawmakers are writing laws, what ends up on the books: "Everyone is born with an equal right to live..."

And, for the record, I'd just like to point out that many legal arguments have been tried in this thread. The OP's only interested in moral arguments (easier to dismiss than fact, probably).

[Elenir]

Well, like the general said, the kid picked a side, he got into this mess and now he has to pay the price. although he did commit a warcrime.

[Inmeria]

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.

...

I'd be of the opinion that any person, even if they are a combatant, who is captured, restrained, and incapable of inflicting any further harm should be imprisoned rather than executed. And while there may be, as I've seen some claim here, some extenuating circumstances in which the general has at least slightly better reason to execute the kid (that he might cause trouble later / it might be impractical to secure POW in the middle of a warzone) I believe that those can't be applied here when you consider the above underlined. If the city and outlying area has been secured and the frontlines have moved away from your position, then you should be capable of handling a single 15 year old POW.

[Kowani]

Now, I don't disagree with you that it's murder. Not my point. But, if I follow my train of thought to it's logical end, there is no reason why murder is morally wrong. And it's important to distinguish that word, morally, because just because there's no reason that it is wrong does not mean that it should be permitted, as a society that allows wonton murder will no survive very long.

I think that our morals are generally informed by millennia of social observations of things that work for society, which are then codified into an internal code called morality and later turned into an external code called law (I mean, laws have also had a number of other influences -- including pseudoscience -- but those have generally been weeded out by better science: and laws against murder, rape, theft, and other socially harmful things are fairly solid, I'd say).

That's very nice to say, and it may be true in some cases, but some things that we hold to be moral today in some places are immoral in others, and one does not even have to leave one's country to find this. Obviously, the Morality of a Ugandan and a Canadian are going to differ on various points, for varying reasons. However, the point is that they differ.

Taking murder as an example (I don't think this is literally how it happened, but just to explain the idea):

--> Our earliest ancestors noticed that, every time they killed someone willy-nilly, their society shrank and they had fewer people to go hunt, meaning it got harder to catch food. One day, the smartest of the bunch says (however s/he expressed it), "I say, old chaps, every time we kill someone for no real reason, it gets harder to hunt. Maybe we should stop doing that..."

--> Then, what began as an observation becomes codified as a way to live: "Don't kill someone without provocation."

Nobody (Except perhaps the most extreme libertarians) would say that killing without provocation is bad. The difference becomes what is considered just provocation for killing, and that is where the problems lie, in that it eventually becomes a difference of opinion.

--> Over time, it becomes ingrained as a moral, that children are told on parents' knees "It's wrong to murder people."
--> Then, when lawmakers are writing laws, what ends up on the books: "Everyone is born with an equal right to live..."

I'm sure homosexuals in most of the Middle East would love that right...

And, for the record, I'd just like to point out that many legal arguments have been tried in this thread. The OP's only interested in moral arguments (easier to dismiss than fact, probably).

That's why I didn't bother with law.n Besides, I tend to shy away from legalism for morality based arguments.

[The Free Joy State]

I think that our morals are generally informed by millennia of social observations of things that work for society, which are then codified into an internal code called morality and later turned into an external code called law (I mean, laws have also had a number of other influences -- including pseudoscience -- but those have generally been weeded out by better science: and laws against murder, rape, theft, and other socially harmful things are fairly solid, I'd say).

That's very nice to say, and it may be true in some cases, but some things that we hold to be moral today in some places are immoral in others, and one does not even have to leave one's country to find this. Obviously, the Morality of a Ugandan and a Canadian are going to differ on various points, for varying reasons. However, the point is that they differ.

People's morals do differ. I don't believe objective unchanging, universal morality exists, but that doesn't mean that -- when people do something heinous (as the general does in this scenario) it should be shrugged off, as a matter for that person's morality.

People's morals needing shoring up is why we have the U.N., The Geneva Convention, and why organisations are empowered to act if necessary.

Society only works if there are some basic standards that protect the maximum number of people.

Those standards do change, of course. A lot of what was "moral" in the West one-hundred years ago -- including beating a woman (but with a stick no thicker than the thumb), never writing with the left hand (as that was associated with evil), and all the laws against LGBT people -- have been rightly (largely) dismissed with the progression of society.

Taking murder as an example (I don't think this is literally how it happened, but just to explain the idea):
--> Our earliest ancestors noticed that, every time they killed someone willy-nilly, their society shrank and they had fewer people to go hunt, meaning it got harder to catch food. One day, the smartest of the bunch says (however s/he expressed it), "I say, old chaps, every time we kill someone for no real reason, it gets harder to hunt. Maybe we should stop doing that..."

--> Then, what began as an observation becomes codified as a way to live: "Don't kill someone without provocation."

Nobody (Except perhaps the most extreme libertarians) would say that killing without provocation is bad. The difference becomes what is considered just provocation for killing, and that is where the problems lie, in that it eventually becomes a difference of opinion.

I take your point that different systems judge provocation differently.

But, surely there has to be some way to judge whether the given provocation is acceptable or not. Otherwise, "he looked at me funny" could be just as acceptable as "he burst into my home and chased me around with a huge knife".

--> Over time, it becomes ingrained as a moral, that children are told on parents' knees "It's wrong to murder people."
--> Then, when lawmakers are writing laws, what ends up on the books: "Everyone is born with an equal right to live..."

I'm sure homosexuals in most of the Middle East would love that right...

I take that point too.

Though that goes back to my point about laws based on pseudoscience and prejudices that continue in spite of opposing evidence. When people don't let the latest information inform their morality -- and in turn -- the law, morality can be a dangerous guide.

[Thermodolia]

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.

...

I'd be of the opinion that any person, even if they are a combatant, who is captured, restrained, and incapable of inflicting any further harm should be imprisoned rather than executed. And while there may be, as I've seen some claim here, some extenuating circumstances in which the general has at least slightly better reason to execute the kid (that he might cause trouble later / it might be impractical to secure POW in the middle of a warzone) I believe that those can't be applied here when you consider the above underlined. If the city and outlying area has been secured and the frontlines have moved away from your position, then you should be capable of handling a single 15 year old POW.

Dig 9ft hole in the ground, put kid in hole, kid is now secure

[Caracasus]

Under current law which this scenario uses you're either a POW or a civilian prisoner. Neither status allows for summary execution without trial.

Not true. Under current international law you can be a POW, an unprivileged combatant, or a civilian prisoner. If you do not fit the definition of a lawful combatant under the Third Geneva Convention or a protected person under the Fourth, you are an unprivileged combatant who is subject to martial law of the holding nation, which may include summary execution.

I think we may be arguing past each other, and I have probably misused the term summary execution.

My problem with this is that the general just has him dragged off and shot. If there were some sort of tribunal or something then I'd have fewer problems with his execution. I'm struggling to see how in the context of this scenario there is any justification for just having him shot, but yeah I'm under no illusions that there's nothing good in the assassin's rather limited future should they instead be arrested and tried properly.

[The New California Republic]

After returning to the thread after a good sleep I decided to read through the posts that I missed. I've decided to not even bother trying to talk to IM regarding this matter anymore, as their resistance to any opinion from any quarter regarding the fact that their opinion may be wrong is never going to budge. They are less interested in debating and more interested in trying to say that summarily executing an unarmed child in this scenario is OK, and isn't willing to give an inch in that regard, being content to shoot down any debate that even mentions the law, likely because it is highly inconvenient for their position. IM has mentioned vague things like "fair play" and their oft repeated and nonsensical "factors" to try to justify it, with no explanation regarding what they mean. IM has even admitted that they consider laws applicable to this matter to be too strict, so their constant assertion that this issue does not involve the law and is solely or primarily a moral issue is complete nonsense. Their default position is to say that laws can be bad and/or that laws and morality are completely different, but when actually pushed to say why the laws applicable to this matter specifically are bad, there is no real response from IM. Hence, until there is something else of substance given in this thread that I can work with, I will content myself with being an observer.

[British Tackeettlaus]

After returning to the thread after a good sleep I decided to read through the posts that I missed. I've decided to not even bother trying to talk to IM regarding this matter anymore, as their resistance to any opinion from any quarter regarding the fact that their opinion may be wrong is never going to budge. They are less interested in debating and more interested in trying to say that summarily executing an unarmed child in this scenario is OK, and isn't willing to give an inch in that regard, being content to shoot down any debate that even mentions the law, likely because it is highly inconvenient for their position. IM has mentioned vague things like "fair play" and their oft repeated and nonsensical "factors" to try to justify it, with no explanation regarding what they mean. IM has even admitted that they consider laws applicable to this matter to be too strict, so their constant assertion that this issue does not involve the law and is solely or primarily a moral issue is complete nonsense. Their default position is to say that laws can be bad and/or that laws and morality are completely different, but when actually pushed to say why the laws applicable to this matter specifically are bad, there is no real response from IM. Hence, until there is something else of substance given in this thread that I can work with, I will content myself with being an observer.

I'm on your side on this, but I am completely uninterested in arguing about the laws of war that have been agreed upon. I think that it is completely immoral to murder a defensless child, POW or whatever. Strange we are arguing about that really.

I think it is a horrible thing to do, and if you think it's ok then you are a horrible person. Just my opinion.

[Ifreann]

He took one shot at the general. He didn't "nearly kill" him. Had he been any significant threat to the general's life, the general would have been -- at least -- injured, which there is no mention of him being.

He was a lousy shot, no real threat. He probably could barely aim a gun.

He was defenceless: due to his age (a minor child), due to the fact he was disarmed, due to the fact he had surrendered unconditionally, due to the fact he was surrounded by enemy soldiers, and due to the fact he had clearly posed no credible threat to begin with.

No less than five reasons that this child was defenceless.

There was literally no reason to kill him, other than revenge. And revenge has no honour.

he missed by a few inches (so he seems to have training),

You don't need training to nearly hit a stationary target in the middle of the street.

this seems to be a premeditated attack made with preparation and planning and malice (he seemed to know where the general would show up and he was operating from a hidden position)

You don't need access to secret information to look out the window, see someone in an important looking uniform, and take a shot at them.

he's honestly a high level threat because he's not in military uniform and fighting as an illegal combatant

Some kid who apparently had just one bullet is not more of a threat than an actual enemy soldier, especially since he is unarmed and in your custody.