I was thinking a few weeks ago about a small part of the convo you were having just now. If we imagine the continuum between innocent civilians and active duty military, and to the degree that shooting someone in war is ever ethical, at what point is the average adult civilian in a population an ethical target? nostr:npub19mun7qwdyjf7qs3456u8kyxncjn5u2n7klpu4utgy68k4aenzj6synjnft #ethics #war
Discussion
strip you of your adult civilian funded vest, gear and gun, put you in sub zero conditions naked and hungry, then we can talk about ethical targets.
Not sure what you mean đŤ
One thought is that the answer is never - but then by the same logic itâs hard to say that rear lines military folk who for example were pressed into service are ever ethical targets either.
To the extent that there are rules for warfare, those rules demand that civilians are never valid _targets_. Those same rules also demand that valid military targets are not made invalid by nearby civilians. The reasoning for that second demand is terrifyingly obvious. If civilians could be used to invalidate a target, then every warring faction _would use_ civilians to protect their most valued military assets.
As for the whether conscription is ethical, it is easy to understand that a society that cannot defend itself will not survive. Thus, the cost of citizenship is the possibility of conscription.
From: (mark) at 11/03 16:40
> One thought is that the answer is never - but then by the same logic itâs hard to say that rear lines military folk who for example were pressed into service are ever ethical targets either.
CC: #[4]
Yeah thatâs true. Some civilian deaths may be part of mitigating the incentive to do what Hamas has done - using a population as a human shield.
Here are a few groups of civilians: people who vote indicating support of the actions of the military youâre fighting, people who just pay taxes, people who express online support of the military actions, people who spend half their day building weapons for sending to the front line, people who volunteer to drive those weapons to the front line, people who move into the settlements that are encroaching on your land.
Other thoughtsâŚ
Sometimes people talk as though society has an interest apart from those of its constituents. But I think we are assuming that âsociety not survivingâ means the people in question are subjugated to some power that they would have been willing to fight against if they had been able to coordinate well enough - and in that context conscription is justified because it solves that human coordination problem.
Yeah Iâd like to see a culture of people that donât need or use it. Maybe we donât these days with good neighbors.. it is nerve wracking to consider trying though. Freedom tech may help with lowering the benefit to a victorious invader.. maybe..
I should also clarify that I do condemn Hamas. If one squints to unsee the particulars of recent news, it could be seen differently, but the full picture strips any credibility gained between people forgetting that their mission has been to kill all global Jews and recognizing what Israel has done to Palestinians - which is its own evil.
Anyway, I just realized that some people were acting as if there is an easily agreed to ethical line here for all cases which is never gray, but of course there is gray. Thatâs interesting to me.
There are lines that separate the grey from the black and white. Hamas crossed that line on 10-7.
There have been suggestions that the line was not truly crossed.
For example: Hamas' intent was to kill IDF soldiers in their sleep; and that IDF soldiers are a valid military target.
I reject this on a few grounds.
a) One does not preface a sneak attack on soldiers in their beds by launching a massive barrage of rockets all through their territory. Such a launch guarantees that the soldiers will be up and armed.
b) A sneak attack in the midst of a declared cease-fire invalidates the action.
c) The taking of hundreds of hostages must have been planned in advance and is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
d) Filming the torture, rape, and execution of civilians, and posting those videos on-line is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
e) Using ultra-light aircraft to attack a dance concert is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
f) Going house to house in civilian neighborhoods and killing families in their safe rooms and bomb shelters is inconsistent with the mission of killing soldiers in their sleep.
Thus, the mission was never to kill soldiers in their sleep. The mission was terror.
From: (mark) at 11/03 16:48
>
> Anyway, I just realized that some people were acting as if there is an easily agreed to ethical line here for all cases which is never gray, but of course there is gray. Thatâs interesting to me.
CC: #[4]
I hope you don't think that I believe the mission was to kill soldiers in their sleep. I hope you don't believe that I think Hamas was justified in their actions. I hope you don't believe that I support Hamas in any way.
Arguing from a smart phone while travelling, it is tempting to make comments short, which risks misunderstanding.
My point has been that there is a position one could take in support of Hamas that requires a particular set of beliefs about the facts (which I hardly share) and which is not nornatively morally relative nor relies on various leftwing beliefs if which Kisin is sure are the foundation of all support of Palestine.
Also of note, only a very tiny sliver of left-wing Pro-Palestinians think Hamas's actions are justifiable. Most see Hamas as detrimental to Palestinians. Most simply don't believe Israels retaliation in its given form is ethical, and they care about dead babies.
Yeah I agree that the specific actions taken by Hamas fighters puts them solidly on the bad side of the gray.