COMMENTS:
A life is a life, whether Soldier or Civilian. I'd say that the Civilian isn't in a position to choose the situation they may find themself in and the Soldier, by signing up, has prepared himself for the eventuality that he may end up in battle. In answer to the question no, but I think the Civilian gets the rawer deal.
I know that comparing the "value" of lives is a little like playing God/Satan, but I contend that a soldier is trained, equipped, defended, ready, and understands that s/he may die. The soldier has a tactical military advantage, whereas a civilian is essentially defenseless. Being a soldier is voluntary. A civilian, in war, may understand that they could die, but that is because he or she did not have any choice.
Looks like we generally agree, and were typing at the same time. Except I voted yes, acknowledging that no one is above anyone else in comparing the lives of people.
no.
A soldiers life is worth less because they would kill for money or an ideal, whereas someone who would kill in self defence or protect their family (not country or belief) has not murdered, or by intention, would murder.
Both the soldier's and civilian's life is worth the same thing.A uniform does not give you the right to kill innocent people nor does it make you better than them.Likewise a lack of a uniform does not give you the right to attack soldiers nor are you their moral superior because you do not kill people.At the end of the day we're all just men,uniform or no uniform we're all going to the grave.
corrupt - a soldier might say 'kill or be killed' a civilian 'I kill if i must' - by accepting death the soldier places a lower value on her/his life.
Litigator saying "kill or be killed" is saying I "kill if I must" because the soldier is not killing because he want's to he is killing inorder to defend himself.Also I disagree that by accepting death the soldier puts a lower value on his life;if anything by acknowledging his mortality the soldier is able to appreciate life better than the civilian who takes everyday for granted.
What is the context here? If the civilian is a mortal threat, the soldier reacts.
bout the same..
corrupt - if you place yourself in a life or death situation - then ' kill or be killed' is appropraite because you are wearing a uniform of an acknowledged enemy - a civilian , on the other hand, is not risking his life (generally)- so will act to defend (unless he is a criminal).
Appreciating life is probably easier if it may suddenly end - a sunrise or sunset become more awesome, because it may be your last.
Interesting - I say a soldiers life has less value because he is expected to take others and risk his own - I would never suggest that a soldier places a lower value on his/her own life though. In fact a foundation of soldiering is that you protect your comrades lifes at risk of your own.
I do not critise soldiers as a whole, but there has not been many examples of western soldiers protecting life in the last 60 years.
Observer, the context is a civilian caught in a warzone -- man, woman, or child. They have no impetus to kill, and they do not want to die, like most people.
When I had it in mind to become a naval officer, my rationalization was that I was doing it to defend civilian life, that it would be my *duty* to lay down my life for an innocent.
I'd take the opposite tack of Litiigator -- it is not that a soldier's life is worth less, but that a Civilian's life is worth more.
The soldier is a trained professional -- the civilian is an Innocent; thus the burden of looking out for non-combatants falls to the professional, requiring him/ her to take extra pains (and often incur additional risk).
^ Let me add the qualifier that this answer applies 'in a war zone' or wherever combat is taking place.
IMO, not one life is worth more than another .
|
