The Instigator
Fonzie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JOhn_D.5ilver
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Soldiers are murderers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,330 times Debate No: 31171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Fonzie

Pro

Ok, technically the definition of murder is the unlawful killing of someone. But killing someone, under any circumstance is surely unethical. If signing on a dotted line makes it legal to brutally kill someone else then where does that leave justifiable homicide such as acts self defense? Where is the line crossed on what is right and what is wrong?
JOhn_D.5ilver

Con

Killing on itself is not wrong nor right. The colouring of it depends on the motive. The reason people think it's wrong is because of how the media portraits it as bad. Why? So that people don't go out and get their own justice. Also, linked with guilt as you see often on television shows where someone kills a person by accident is consumed with guilt. Even though it's not that person fault and therefore guilt should not be a response of the act. Now that has been cleared up lets now start the debate. What classify's as murder is the conscious motive of the perpetrator. Soldiers are not initially trained to go out and just kill everybody they see insight. The next thing is that they are trained severely in combat by the army and within that it becomes second nature. Not a conscious act in situation where killing might occur. By that soldiers are not by definition murderers, but do share the responsibility for killing out of certain motives. In most cases these people are just following orders in which not sufficient enough a reason to classify it as unconscious killings. It does leave room to think about the purpose of the army training these soldiers for lethal combat. As perhaps they are the cause for you to think soldiers are murderers. For they are the once performing it. I will ask of you to look into what I have said and if they are really responsible. Round two, let it be an interesting round.
Debate Round No. 1
Fonzie

Pro

Thank you for your reply.
I understand that the title of the debate may be vague, and by soldiers I am mainly referring to those fighting in modern day wars where it is the soldier's personal choice whether to sign up or not, and by murder I do mean the ethical and moral perception of the crime rather than the literal meaning, as I am aware that the term 'murder' is law based.
I also appreciate the view on how our morals are based on how we perceive certain aspects of life as we grow up.
The debate was mainly to establish the difference, or lack of difference, between killing someone for personal motives and killing someone for a pay check (based on the morals which the vast majority of society share). I believe there is obviously a key difference to modern day warfare as in most cases it is an option, whereas in WW1&2 it was mainly compulsory for men to fight. However I believe there is a thin line between illegal contract killings and modern warfare that is thickened by laws set down by authorities and such things as the romanticism of soldiers in the media. I understand that it isn't in most of the soldiers' intentions to kill 'innocent' people, but in many cases such casualties have occurred in crossfire, which leads to the point that violence can not be solved with more violence. For the conscious act point, I believe that whether it is a conscious decision in which a person believes within their own set of morals that what the are doing is right or if what they are doing is wrong all comes under the same bracket, and that doesn't stop it from being right or wrong. Obviously every situation is different, but if a serial murderer and rapist commits such crimes on the grounds that they believe what they have done is morally right, they should not be set free to commit further crimes of that manner just because of their beliefs, I also do not believe they should be raped and murdered as a punishment, they should instead receive mental help. I do not think that it should be seen as morally right to kill someone as a soldier for the interests of the governing body any more than it is to kill someone for your own interests.
I look forward to seeing your response.
JOhn_D.5ilver

Con

Thank you for clearing that up. Although I must say that the debate has obviously taken a different direction now. I will not personally agree or disagree with what you said in round two. Instead, I will try to win this debate.

The debate was mainly to establish the difference, or lack of difference, between killing someone for personal motives and killing someone for a paycheck.

The obviousness of the act stands. Whereas the motive decides as the indicator of right or wrong. In the case of the soldier, he signs up not to the notion that he is going to be killer for his country and by it stands justified in doing so. His motive here before signing up is not to take upon this role directly. In the case of personal reasons, the motive is directly linked with it, for the act is murder only. The soldier takes upon himself for whatever reason the state has provided the need for participation to in-list. Not directly linked to killing, but to serving his country. May it be that his motives are directly linked to wanting to kill people in that situation it will be an act of murder if still provided he feels that way during the act. It comes down to the motive must be directly linked with the act.
Debate Round No. 2
Fonzie

Pro

Fonzie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.