We are all a product of our society and in our democracy you will be punished for killing other people like it´s, according to common morality, the worst thing you can do to a fellow human being. Since the Ten Commandments is one of the pillars of our society (Thou Shalt not kill) and since we all have compassionate impulses after 2000 years of Christian education, the merciful Jesus, and love for our fellow human beings, it´s probably the reason that I felt that I ought to have a problem with killing. That is why it is extremely important that as a practitioner of violence in the service of society, you are completely resolved with the idea that one day you might need to kill. Otherwise, you risk having problems, which may not be a problem when it comes to it. Personally I have reflected on every kill that I or my chaps have committed.
"United we stand, divided we fall" If you don´t have a strong unity and identity, you can never win. This applies to soldiers, football players and companies also. And as an officer and leader, it is my task to strengthen and maintain this unity. I´m the "tribal chieftain" and must achieve 100% faithfulness from the lads. It´s me who ultimately determines who is lives and who dies both on the enemy side and also on our own. It´s a huge responsibility and it requires a strong unity. My dispositions might cost my own lads their lives and they know it, but our identity is so strong that they trust me.
Yes, for me it means a lot to be a Royal Marines Commando. I became an officer because I´m a leader and because I love working with people from all parts of society. To educate young people so that they will grow up to be a benefit and not a burden to our society is my goal. To me being an RM officer means choosing the hard right over the easy wrong and protecting my Marines, training them and leading them is a lifelong challenge I look forward to every day.
It requires special circumstances before I take a human life and if there is an alternative solution to neutralize a threat, then it´s the one I chose.
I belive that unjustified killing is wrong. Imagine, if you will, the "right not to be killed" as a bubble that surrounds each person. Each of us possesses the right that no one else "violate our bubble" and harm us. By virtue of being human, every person possesses a bubble. This is consistent with our moral intuitions. When we are walking down the street, for example, it would be morally wrong to physically assault a person walking past us. We would be violating that person´s bubble. He possessed the fundamental human right not to be physically harmed.
Yet we also know that someone can forfeit that right—can "burst his own bubble." A right is a right as long as it does not violate the more fundamental right of another. Thus, we recognize that if a person intentionally violates (or threatens to violate) the bubble of another, he forfeits his own bubble.
It´s important to note that a just defender does not forfeit his rights when he attacks an unjust aggressor. When fighting in a just war, a soldier is a defender. Soldiers continue to possess their bubbles as long as they direct violence only at those who have already forfeited their right not to be killed. Enemy combatants are the ones who have "lost their bubbles" by threatening the rights of those who possess them—non-combatants and/or our soldiers. Even if they are not personally threatening anyone at the time we engage them, combatants for an unjust cause are still morally permissible targets because they are operating as part of a larger organism—the unjust threat.
Consistent with the rules of war, an aggressor´s forfeiture of rights is not permanent. The default setting for a human being is to possess the right not to be killed, so when a person is no longer a threat, he regains his right, his bubble. What constitutes a "threat"? A threat is someone who possesses both the intent and the capability to violate someone´s right not to be killed. As soon as a person no longer has the intent or the capability to violate the bubble of another, he regains his own bubble and should not be killed. This is why it is morally wrong to kill a detainee or an incapacitated insurgent.
I´ll be the first to acknowledge its shortcoming as a purely logical approach to an intensely emotional experience. Even soldiers who internalize this theory may still experience sadness, guilt, or shame after they kill in war. I doubt we would want it any other way; killing another human being is not something to be taken lightly. Maybe the best we can hope for is that good soldiers´ bad feelings will be tempered by the knowledge that they did nothing morally wrong.
I wear a uniform and commit extreme violence for all people in the world who are not themselves able to do it. I do this so you, me and everyone else can live the life we want without fear. This is an obligation the soldier assumes. Just like your local police officer we serve and protect, I just do it globally. This is what we are here for - to act as a protective wall in front of those who can´t defend themselves.
I love the physical and mental challenge. I love the rugged nature. I love getting wet, tired, dirty, scared and I love the feeling of great joy when something is completed to my satisfaction. Yes, actually I love life so much that I am willing to put my life on the line so that you can live yours. It probably sounds like a cliché, but that´s how I feel and that´s what drives me.
brinktk- I can understand your frustration of trying to explain something that civilians like myself will never really understand. I can also understand what you mean by living in what seems like different worlds, it must be especially annoying in regards to the half vs full speed thing. Although I am grateful people like me will never have to go to war (though I did spend over a year going through the application process, as this is something I wanted to do) at the same time, I feel like I am missing an experience that- as you defined -is more exhilarating and heightened then anything else. It would also put things into perspective, which I feel is another frustrating gap between civilians and military personnel that may never be bridged.
Your response has been excellent as a support for reasons people might not have this inbuilt resistance to killing (or if they do its not biological), you have also given me a fresh perspective by mentioning the people that sign up not just once more, but again and again. Something that did not occur to me before.
Thanks again.
More to come shortly if people are still willing. I am currently working on the questionnaires, now I have a methodological approach in mind.
Exactly. I don´t believe that there is a genetically inherited resistance to killing. Every human being would do so if put in a situation where it is about basic survival. Your primate brain would simply take control and make sure you survive. This "built-in resistance" is in my opinion, the result of the upbringing and socialization that man over the centuries has undergone. If we consider the time before Christianity spread in Europe, it is not my impression that there was a genetic blockage. An aversion arises in many communities, but this is the general development of the clan and the formation of states. If someone killed members of your clan, it should be revenged and vendetta created disorder in the existing social structures and therefore it could only be approved in exceptional circumstances.42RM- From what you have described above, it seems as though overall you feel your moral upbringing and identity as a individual based on that upbringing tells you to kill is wrong. As you suggested, this is based on religious beliefs and general societal rules and norms based on religion (which as you suggested is very strong in our culture)
But as you further mentioned, when you join as a combat soldier, you must accept that despite this, you must be willing to kill. In the military, the norms change from the outside world. If you identify strongly with the military, and your unit (Royal Marines) you accept that it is morally acceptable to kill the enemy (if done legally as you said). You mentioned that soldiers may feel stressed, guilty etc from killing in combat. Do you feel that this guilt may come from their identity with the outside world, which as you mentioned suggests killing is wrong? Or do you feel this guilt and stress is based on the fact it is just not natural to kill? Why I ask is because you mentioned we are all a product of our society, suggesting you believe if any stress or guilt does come from the kill, it is based on that, as apposed to a biological thing?
Yes - I have never been in doubt that this would be my mission in life. But that you to such an extent, with extremely powerful means, hold death and destruction in your hands is something you only understand when you have been there and done it and it takes a very high moral requirement. I am very aware of my and my Marines integrity. We don´t kill at all costs, but if the misionen have a reasonable purpose and if required, it´s what we do - job done!It also sounds like you feel like your identity as a soldier and as an officer is something you sought out. Based on your desires to protect those who cant protect themselves, to do a job that you think others can't do.
It´s our society who sends young people to war. Then it is also our societies task to support and accept them when they come home.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.