Is a Soldier or Civilian's life more valuable?

[Kuan]

In WWII, the U.S. opted to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I remember being taught in elementary school that this was done because it was going to cost too many American soldiers lives to invade Japan. This has never set well with me though and can correlate to our day.

The U.S. is using drone strikes to gather intelligence and to assassinate terrorists, but these are known to have civilian casualties. Now civilian casualties are impossible to eliminate, sadly, in any combat situation.

Now, these are the questions I pose:
1. Isn't it ethically and morally better to do all in your power to protect civilians as much as possible? Or does this only matter based upon their nationality?
2. Is it better for a soldier from your country to die, or a civilian from a different country?

[Divine Insight]

Wars are always dirty business no matter what weapons are used. There is nothing ethical or moral about war to begin with.

Having said that dropping A-bombs on entire cities is clearly the epitome of immorality.

It's a shame there has to be wars to begin with.

It's a shame that the world can't come to intelligent diplomatic solutions to our problems.

The fact that wars are still being fought in the beginning of the 21st century is scary, because this just shows that diplomacy isn't maturing very well.

In fact, look at the USA. The government can't even get along with itself in a friendly diplomatic way. The democrats and republicans fight like cats and dogs. It's disgusting.

And that's just an example of a single country basically having a political war with itself. Obviously other countries have their own internal conflicts and civil wars, etc.

And how scary is that?

Countries can't even get alone with themselves, how in the world are they ever going to get along with their neighbors.

I am totally disgusted with the whole of humanity. It's just pathetic.

Even religions fight against each other. Look at how the Abrahamic religions have becoming nothing more than extremely disagreeing arguing sects. Judaism, versus Islam, versus Catholicism, versus Protestantism, etc, etc, etc.

Mankind just seem to love to hate each other, even in the name of their religions and gods.

It's disgusting.

[Goat]

In WWII, the U.S. opted to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I remember being taught in elementary school that this was done because it was going to cost too many American soldiers lives to invade Japan. This has never set well with me though and can correlate to our day.

The U.S. is using drone strikes to gather intelligence and to assassinate terrorists, but these are known to have civilian casualties. Now civilian casualties are impossible to eliminate, sadly, in any combat situation.

Now, these are the questions I pose:
1. Isn't it ethically and morally better to do all in your power to protect civilians as much as possible? Or does this only matter based upon their nationality?
2. Is it better for a soldier from your country to die, or a civilian from a different country?

It is ethically and morally better to do all in your power to protect all life as much as possible. This does not matter based on nationality. On the other hand, we are morally obligated to protect our soldiers at much as possible too. This makes war highly immoral, no matter how you cut it.

That being said, that WAS the reason the smart bombs were developed. In war, there will be mistakes, which makes war immoral. However, war will happen, unfortunately, and doing all you can to avoid killing civilians is imperative.

From a pragmatic point of view, the life of a solider is more important to this country than the civilian of another country. That doesn't make the civilian less important, or the taking of the life more moral, it is just a practical matter. That is yet another reason war is plain immoral, and should be avoided. The practicability does not mean it's more moral.

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
Its not going to change anytime soon. The world is the way it is today because we insist on separating ourselves from others, its actually a normal behavior. We all seek in groups, the people with whom we most closely identify and share something in common with. An argument could be made that tribes formed this way, and over time developed into kingdoms, and so on until we have arrived at the current country-state of today.

[Replying to post 3 by Goat]
I understand your point of view, but I feel that as a soldiers job, you are to protect the innocent, after all, isn't that what your trying to do? Protect the innocent women and children from your country? If your doing that, shouldn't you also do the same for those of another nationality?

Especially in areas like Iraq or Afghanistan were we are supposed to be the "liberators?" We invaded those countries, firstly to target terrorist groups, but secondly to instill democracy and our propaganda to them is that we are saving them and creating a stable democracy in their country. Yet, they feel fear every time they hear a drone coming.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
Its not going to change anytime soon. The world is the way it is today because we insist on separating ourselves from others, its actually a normal behavior. We all seek in groups, the people with whom we most closely identify and share something in common with. An argument could be made that tribes formed this way, and over time developed into kingdoms, and so on until we have arrived at the current country-state of today.

[Replying to post 3 by Goat]
I understand your point of view, but I feel that as a soldiers job, you are to protect the innocent, after all, isn't that what your trying to do? Protect the innocent women and children from your country? If your doing that, shouldn't you also do the same for those of another nationality?

Especially in areas like Iraq or Afghanistan were we are supposed to be the "liberators?" We invaded those countries, firstly to target terrorist groups, but secondly to instill democracy and our propaganda to them is that we are saving them and creating a stable democracy in their country. Yet, they feel fear every time they hear a drone coming.

Yes, yes they do. I do not think the use of drones is cost effective or moral at this point of time. It is less damaging that carpet bombing. However, we should not be in Afganistan at the current time. Nor, should we worry about the tribal areas of Pakistan. Let the Pakistani worry about that. The tribal warfare in that area has been going on forever, and our interference has not helped matters.

Don't you know the proclaiming ourselves to be 'liberators', we merely are using propaganda for justification?

While there was some justification for the war in Afghanistan, that justification has long been over. There never was good justification for the war in Iraq. Anything there is an upset in a region, there is always unintended consequences.

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 5 by Goat]
Agreed, there is not much of a reason to be in those countries at the moment and stabilizing the region is not realistic.

[McCulloch]

Its not going to change anytime soon.

It is changing. The change is gradual, but demonstrable. In The Better Angels of our Nature, Steven Pinker presents a large amount of data (and statistical analysis thereof) that, he argues, demonstrate that violence has been in decline over millennia and that the present is probably the most peaceful time in the history of the human species. The decline in violence, he argues, is enormous in magnitude, visible on both long and short time scales, and found in many domains, including military conflict, homicide, genocide, torture, criminal justice, and the treatment of children, animals, racial and ethnic minorities, and gay people. He stresses that "The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue". [quote from Wikipedia, cuz I'm too lazy to summarize this book myself]

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 7 by McCulloch]

I was referring to the situation in Afghanistan not the situation of the whole world.

[bluethread]

Philosophically, the issue boils down to the morality of the preemptive and retaliatory strike.

In the case of the preemptive strike, which is more morally acceptable? Is it better to value the lives of the potential victims as greater than the lives of the potential perpetrators, or is it better to consider the presumption of innocence for the potential perpetrators as of greater value than the security of the potential victims.

In the case of the retaliatory strike, which is more morally acceptable? Do the deaths of the actual victims justify the execution of the actual perpetrators, or does the execution of the actual perpetrators just increase the death toll.

In the case of "collateral damage" the same questions apply, but the bystander, whether innocent or collaborative, is in the place of the perpetrator.

One solution to these philosophical questions is accredited to general George Patton in the movie Patton. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

[Kuan]

Philosophically, the issue boils down to the morality of the preemptive and retaliatory strike.

In the case of the preemptive strike, which is more morally acceptable? Is it better to value the lives of the potential victims as greater than the lives of the potential perpetrators, or is it better to consider the presumption of innocence for the potential perpetrators as of greater value than the security of the potential victims.

In the case of the retaliatory strike, which is more morally acceptable? Do the deaths of the actual victims justify the execution of the actual perpetrators, or does the execution of the actual perpetrators just increase the death toll.

In the case of "collateral damage" the same questions apply, but the bystander, whether innocent or collaborative, is in the place of the perpetrator.

One solution to these philosophical questions is accredited to general George Patton in the movie Patton. "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Great post, its a hard choice. Using that to analyze the drone strikes, I think I would choose, the innocence of the bystander is greater than the execution of the perpetrator. Instead of using drones, we should use soldiers.