Are there Really any Innocents?

[LuisDantas]

Hopefully human animals would react against a given govenment before things got to this stage... ... then again, you are in South America...


*melts into a purple mist*
*poof*

I find the history of Gadaffi particularly enlightening in this regard.

I have come to be rather wary of anything that involves nationalism.

 

[Thanda]

I think you’ve gone further than that, you’ve argued that civilians (in a democracy) are automatically “guilty” of the actions of their governments and suggested they are as legitimate targets as armed attacking emery soldiers. You’ve also implied that any act is legitimate against civilians that the attackers believe (or claim to believe) will hasten the end of the conflict, not excluding any of the acts or weapons that are explicitly prohibited by international law at the moment.

I disagree. I’d suggest most civilians are of the mind of hoping all the killing ends soon so they can get on with their lives. Most military conflicts are somewhat distanced from the day-to-day needs and desires of the average citizen, especially with the complexity of modern day conflicts.

Indeed, where they have done nothing to oppose their democratically elected government and have therefore not used any of the channels available in their democracy to protest or stop the actions of their government - then indeed an enemy force must assume the civilians are government sympathisers and must assume they are hostile and therefore legitimate targets of their violence (assuming they have decided to go the violence route).

I'm reminded in this connection of Mohammed Ali. He was expected to go fight and kill the Viet Cong whom he had never met and who had never brought any harm to him. His reply was this:

I ain’t draft dodging. I ain’t burning no flag. I ain’t running to Canada. I’m staying right here. You want to send me to jail? Fine, you go right ahead. I’ve been in jail for 400 years. I could be there for 4 or 5 more, but I ain’t going no 10,000 miles to help murder and kill other poor people. If I want to die, I’ll die right here, right now, fightin’ you, if I want to die. You my enemy, not no Chinese, no Vietcong, no Japanese. You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. Want me to go somewhere and fight for you? You won’t even stand up for me right here in America, for my rights and my religious beliefs. You won’t even stand up for my rights here at home.”​

Who did Ali see as his enemies? Was it only the white people who actively created laws to oppress black people? What about those who were merely happy with the status quo and saw no reason for it to change? What about those who couldn't care either way - in other words they are fine if their government continues to oppress blacks but wouldn't care if they stopped? Are they not also his "opposers"? Are they not also contributing to his oppression?

Sometimes, HonestJoe, the situation is such that being a neutral just isn't an option.

Look at the multiple and constantly shifting front lines in Syria for example? By your argument, civilians would be legitimate targets for the enemies of whoever holds that territory that day. If you’re a civilian trapped in a Aleppo, one day the Syrian army might hold the ground but the next ISIS take control. Do the civilians effectively change sides and legitimacy as targets on that basis? Your principle simply makes no sense in the real world.

Do not twist the situation. Is ISIS a democratic institution? Are the rebels democratically elected? Are the conquerors of a captured town or city democratically elected? There was a specific reason why I mentioned a democracy and not some totalitarian state where people have no choice about what is happening in their country other than perhaps resorting to war.

What if your country is attacking the neighbouring country for legitimate reasons – say they were building up forces on the border and openly planning an unprovoked attack themselves? Would the foreign terrorist group still be justified in kidnapping, raping, torturing and executing your family as a consequence? Would a native terrorist group that opposed the government actions be justified in attacking your family because you supported the government?

Again you are going outside the parameters. I repeat I am not commenting on the causes of war and whether or not they are just. I am merely commenting on the status of civilians once the war has been declared.

 

[Thanda]

@Thanda
Do you think the civilians who were killed in islamic terrorism, is not innocent too?

I think we cannot assume their innocence on the sole basis of them being civilians.

 

[HonestJoe]

Indeed, where they have done nothing to oppose their democratically elected government and have therefore not used any of the channels available in their democracy to protest or stop the actions of their government - then indeed an enemy force must assume the civilians are government sympathisers and must assume they are hostile and therefore legitimate targets of their violence (assuming they have decided to go the violence route).

But how do you know if any given civilian did take all possible action to change the policies of their government but failed (like Mohammed Ali as you mention)? You’re still presenting all civilians as legitimate targets for unprovoked and unrestrained violence from an invading military force, terrori actors or indeed other civilians.

Was it only the white people who actively created laws to oppress black people? What about those who were merely happy with the status quo and saw no reason for it to change? What about those who couldn't care either way - in other words they are fine if their government continues to oppress blacks but wouldn't care if they stopped? Are they not also his "opposers"? Are they not also contributing to his oppression?

So are you saying Mohammed Ali would have been perfectly justified in going on a killing spree of white Americans in an attempt to try to end US involvement in Vietnam? Because I see no moral difference between him doing in compared to some foreign attacker doing so. While I hesitate to bring it up so soon, doesn’t you position also justify the recent terrorist acts against US citizens?

Again you are going outside the parameters. I repeat I am not commenting on the causes of war and whether or not they are just. I am merely commenting on the status of civilians once the war has been declared.

I don’t think you can draw that distinction. If you justify any and all violence against civilians of democracies in war then I don’t see how you can deny the same underlying moral principle in other circumstances (or you have to explain why they would be different, as you’ve tried to do on the democracy aspect).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... how far we can make the world correspond to our deepest moral yearnings are regrettably not the same.

This is not as "regrettable" as it might, at first, seem.

 

[McBell]

So when the US army went into Afghanistan it was without the support and approval of the vast majority of the American people?

What does the USA have to do with your fantasy democratic country?

Are you not aware that the USA is not a democratic country but is in fact a republic?

 

[McBell]

All I can think of is Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the thought that this will save lives in the long run.

War is chess brought to life.

Are pawns on the board innocent?

Seems you are addressing a different question entirely.

Civilians are innocent answers the question of the OP.
You seem to be asking if killing innocents is ever ok.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Seems you are addressing a different question entirely.

Civilians are innocent answers the question of the OP.
You seem to be asking if killing innocents is ever ok.

Maybe I misinterpreted. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[McBell]

Maybe I misinterpreted. Thanks for pointing it out.

I will freely admit I may be wrong.
I am merely pointing out how I understood your post.

 

[Thanda]

But how do you know if any given civilian did take all possible action to change the policies of their government but failed (like Mohammed Ali as you mention)? You’re still presenting all civilians as legitimate targets for unprovoked and unrestrained violence from an invading military force, terrori actors or indeed other civilians.

No, I am removing the cloak of the assumed innocence of civilians. I am not saying in targeting civilians enemy groups would have necessarily hit people who are actually guilty of being government sympathizers. Who is more innocent (from the viewpoint of the enemy) - a soldier who sympathises with the enemy group, who intends to quit the army rather than fight the enemy, or a civilian who hopes the army will crush the enemy? Who poses more of a danger to the enemies agenda?

And how does the enemy know when it goes into a military installation what type of person the soldier is - is it the enemy's duty to interview them?

Understand this HonestJoe, it is not an army which declares war on another army. It is a country that declares war on some nation or group. It was not the US army that declared war on Afghanistan and the Taliban. It was America (a.k.a the American People). I think what maybe confuses things these days is the fact that we have full-time professional armies. So there is the illusion of the army being an entity separate and distinct from the people who give it its mandate.
But let us be clear, when the army acts within the bounds of the law established by the people (or their representatives) they are acting on behalf of the people. This is the law of agency. Anything done by the agent within the parameters of the powers and mandate given by the principal is assumed to be the actions and responsibility of the principal. And it is the principal's duty to check on the agent to ensure they are using the powers they have been given responsibly and to hold them accountable when they are not.
That is the beauty and wonder of a democratic (or some other similarly representative) system - it gives the people more rights than what they enjoy in a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime. But they also take on much greater responsibility as a result. They cannot sit back and assume themselves (or expect other to assume them) to be innocent of the actions of their representatives.

So are you saying Mohammed Ali would have been perfectly justified in going on a killing spree of white Americans in an attempt to try to end US involvement in Vietnam? Because I see no moral difference between him doing in compared to some foreign attacker doing so. While I hesitate to bring it up so soon, doesn’t you position also justify the recent terrorist acts against US citizens?

No actually I'm saying if Muhammed Ali wanted to fight the people who were denying him full rights as an American citizen he would not have to go all the way to the white house to find his enemies - they were all around him.

I don’t think you can draw that distinction. If you justify any and all violence against civilians of democracies in war then I don’t see how you can deny the same underlying moral principle in other circumstances (or you have to explain why they would be different, as you’ve tried to do on the democracy aspect).

I have not justified any and all violence. I have not said armed forces should target civilians. I've not said that armed forces who target civilians are doing the right thing. I am merely saying that in an of itself, deliberately killing the civilians of a democratic state is not inherently evil because the civilians are not inherently innocent. In fact in a democratic state citizens are by default responsible for the actions of the government unless they actively oppose it.

 

[Thanda]

What does the USA have to do with your fantasy democratic country?

Are you not aware that the USA is not a democratic country but is in fact a republic?

And so?

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/
noun

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

 

[At The Left Hand ov God]

And so?

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/
noun

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Just to make this easier.

 

[Thanda]

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Just to make this easier.

Thanks. I think in regards to our discussion here about the responsibility of civilians for the decisions of their country remains valid whether a pure democracy or a democratic republic exist.

 

[McBell]

Thanks. I think in regards to our discussion here about the responsibility of civilians for the decisions of their country remains valid whether a pure democracy or a democratic republic exist.

so where do you draw the line?
I propose we take it clean clear back to God, he made everything after all so ultimately every thing is his fault, right?

 

[Thanda]

so where do you draw the line?
I propose we take it clean clear back to God, he made everything after all so ultimately every thing is his fault, right?

The God I believe in did not make everything.

 

[McBell]

The God I believe in did not make everything.

you did not answer the question.
You merely disagreed with my answer.

 

[Thanda]

you did not answer the question.
You merely disagreed with my answer.

What line are you talking about? A country is made up of human beings. If that country is democratic then the buck stops with the human beings who make up that country.

 

[McBell]

What line are you talking about? A country is made up of human beings. If that country is democratic then the buck stops with the human beings who make up that country.

Why do you draw the line there is what I am wanting to know.

 

[Thanda]

Why do you draw the line there is what I am wanting to know.

Well can you please guide me on the logic of how I could draw the line in some other place?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think we cannot assume their innocence on the sole basis of them being civilians.

Sure. It is always possible for us to become monsters in human guise. It happens often enough, even.