Soldiers are murderers
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
Fonzie forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.