Killing for God and Country

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Killing for god is always wrong as god is a figment of imagination.

[james&olya 1,121]

Killing for god is always wrong as god is a figment of imagination.

I agree but I think we might be poking at a hornet's nest here! The 'true believer' thinks god is very literal and I get the impression most of them have difficulty understanding how others can have the view that god does not exist or that he/she is different than what their religion teaches. I think this gets to the core of why we have these problems. This is why I wish people could learn the difference between morality (based on your views of religion, ethics, etc) and legality (based on socially accepted systems of government, rights, etc). The former is promulgated by churches and philosophers, the latter by lawyers and legislators. Our freedom of (and from) religion severs the link between these two though there is obviously (and logically always will be) a great deal of overlap. Freedom of religion means that questions of morality are individual ones. But your right to act on your moral beliefs cannot legally interfere with another person's rights under government. Our constitution expressly forbids government from making laws respecting establishment of religion. The basis for law can only (in the USA) be based on the rights of the individual, singly or collectively as chosen by society).

[Pooky 3,367]

This is why I wish people could learn the difference between morality ... and legality .

Morality = Right & Wrong

Legality = Do's & Don'ts

Simple

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Killing for god is always wrong as god is a figment of imagination.

How about killing for the State?

[james&olya 1,121]

How about killing for the State?

Now it gets interesting! In the USA we have a right to refuse to serve in a 'killing' role if drafted into the military as a 'conscientious objector' '1-O or 1-AO' status. Other countries have not always allowed this. So what does the individual do when his government requires him to kill or, for that matter, do anything that violates his personal morality?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

How about killing for the State?

That is a far more complex question, and virtually impossible to answer due to it being far too broad. There are all sorts of killing for the State.

Soldiers killing to defend the State from outside attack? Soldiers killing for State conquest goals? Soldiers killing in a declared armed conflict?

Spy's killing to assassinate an enemy of the State?

Armed militia or militant groups killing to establish a new State? Too many scenarios to boil it all down to 'is killing for the State right or wrong?'

[james&olya 1,121]

That is a far more complex question, and virtually impossible to answer due to it being far too broad. There are all sorts of killing for the State.

Soldiers killing to defend the State from outside attack? Soldiers killing for State conquest goals? Soldiers killing in a declared armed conflict?

Spy's killing to assassinate an enemy of the State?

Armed militia or militant groups killing to establish a new State? Too many scenarios to boil it all down to 'is killing for the State right or wrong?'

Private security forces (mercenary militaries such as Blackwater) killing because they don't like the looks of a vehicle lawfully approaching them in Iraq?

Yes, way too many possible scenarios here.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I agree but I think we might be poking at a hornet's nest here! The 'true believer' thinks god is very literal and I get the impression most of them have difficulty understanding how others can have the view that god does not exist or that he/she is different than what their religion teaches. I think this gets to the core of why we have these problems. This is why I wish people could learn the difference between morality (based on your views of religion, ethics, etc) and legality (based on socially accepted systems of government, rights, etc). The former is promulgated by churches and philosophers, the latter by lawyers and legislators. Our freedom of (and from) religion severs the link between these two though there is obviously (and logically always will be) a great deal of overlap. Freedom of religion means that questions of morality are individual ones. But your right to act on your moral beliefs cannot legally interfere with another person's rights under government. Our constitution expressly forbids government from making laws respecting establishment of religion. The basis for law can only (in the USA) be based on the rights of the individual, singly or collectively as chosen by society).

Here is the original question that you were answering. Clearly from the perspective of the US legal system the guy flying the plane was wrong for a multitude of reasons including flying a plane without a proper license. And the Marine Is acting with perfect legal justification. The question is about morals.

Is there a moral difference between flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people for god, and joining the United States Marines and killing members of Al Qaeda in afganistan for the United States?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That is a far more complex question, and virtually impossible to answer due to it being far too broad. There are all sorts of killing for the State.

Soldiers killing to defend the State from outside attack? Soldiers killing for State conquest goals? Soldiers killing in a declared armed conflict?

Spy's killing to assassinate an enemy of the State?

Armed militia or militant groups killing to establish a new State? Too many scenarios to boil it all down to 'is killing for the State right or wrong?'

Back in AIT, I was told by an instructor, that I was nothing but a hired killer for the US Government. So, how about killing for a paycheck?

Edited December 26, 2010 by Some Old Guy

[Dan and Judy 614]

That is a far more complex question, and virtually impossible to answer due to it being far too broad. There are all sorts of killing for the State.

Soldiers killing to defend the State from outside attack? Soldiers killing for State conquest goals? Soldiers killing in a declared armed conflict?

Spy's killing to assassinate an enemy of the State?

Armed militia or militant groups killing to establish a new State? Too many scenarios to boil it all down to 'is killing for the State right or wrong?'

This is the way the question was posed

Is there a moral difference between flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people for god, and joining the United States Marines and killing members of Al Qaeda in afganistan for the United States?

[faust-yusov 103]

Is there a moral difference between flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 people for god, and joining the United States Marines and killing members of Al Qaeda in afganistan for the United States?

Most certainly. I would find anyone who denied there was a highly suspicious individual.

The requisite caveat, however, is that we've virtually no way of knowing how inherently "evil" those behind the 9/11 attacks truly were. We would even do well to steer clear of words like "good" or "evil" - they seem to me much more the vernacular of the extremists. Chances are the orchestrators were pretty warped individuals, but the footsoldiers? The hijackers themselves? That's a different issue.

As the physicist Steven Weinberg put it, "with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Edited December 26, 2010 by faust-yusov

[alienlovechild 75]

The requisite caveat, however, is that we've virtually no way of knowing how inherently "evil" those behind the 9/11 attacks truly were. We would even do well to steer clear of words like "good" or "evil" - they seem to me much more the vernacular of the extremists. Chances are the orchestrators were pretty warped individuals, but the footsoldiers? The hijackers themselves? That's a different issue.

As the physicist Steven Weinberg put it, "with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

So "good" nature of the hijackers negates the evil action of killing thousands? You may be the most moral guy around but I don't want to see you shooting into a crowd then explaining it away later. Even if it's not you but some poor misguided slob, that lond of talk influences unstable individuals.

Has very little to with religion which is your personal hangup. The biggest mass murder movements were all largely atheists and that's an indisputable fact. Name the last major "religious" war in the West and that may make you think.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The War on Terror is a religious war from one sides perspective and even for some on the West's side. And your statement about atheists is looney tunes child.

[alienlovechild 75]

The War on Terror is a religious war from one sides perspective and even for some on the West's side. And your statement about atheists is looney tunes child.

Wrong on both counts as there's no religious element in U.S. foreign policy as far as us spreading Christianity or targeting nations solely based on their religion.

As far as loonies go, you've upped the ante if you really believe Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the Kims of North Korea and Pol Pot weren't atheists?

[faust-yusov 103]

So "good" nature of the hijackers negates the evil action of killing thousands? You may be the most moral guy around but I don't want to see you shooting into a crowd then explaining it away later. Even if it's not you but some poor misguided slob, that lond of talk influences unstable individuals.

"Negates"? Not at all. You have me mistaken. I made no attempt to absolve terrorists of responsibility, nor vindicate or "explain" their atrocities retrospectively. My point was that we would do well to distance ourselves from that which is the preserve of the fanatically religious: the memes of "good" and "evil".

Actions are distinguishable from the human beings who enact them. Dealing with actions the magnitude of 9/11 can make this a sentence rather difficult to enunciate - but we must do it, if we are truthfully to claim a morality more nuanced than merely the absolutist or consequentialist, and a rationale greater than that of the extreme or indoctrinated.

Has very little to with religion which is your personal hangup. The biggest mass murder movements were all largely atheists and that's an indisputable fact. Name the last major "religious" war in the West and that may make you think.

My "personal hangup" is irrationality as a catalyst for conflict and hate. Mostly this is derived from tribalism and indoctrination: rudiments of even moderate religion. The Weinberg quote, incidentally, disposes of your "atheist mass murder movements", whatever they may be, with "bad people [doing] bad things."

If there is a failing of the quote, it might be that religion is too narrow a term. Cult mentality can arise in political agenda, philosophy, jingoism, etc, and spur its adherents to comparable tyranny. It is of little importance that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, for example, for aside from spicing much of his rhetoric it didn't appear to motivate his ideology (though there is no doubting that anti-Semitic sentiment, conflated with Aryan aspiration, played a considerable part).

Edited December 27, 2010 by faust-yusov