Who Are the Real Heroes?

[Az]

DinoD- The Old Testament must always be taken with a grain of salt. In it, they claim that God instructs people to kill all men, women and children in cities they conquer.

That's not true. And yes, I know better.

So, monkspider, why would you try to stop the soldier, just because there is a child?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider

I didn't notice the child in the picture. Under these circumstances, I would make a desperate attempt to knock the gun out of the soldier's hands.

I said you are standing where the camera is, which means he's getting ready to shoot the woman and child in the picture as you watch. You're about 25 feet away, he's getting ready to pull the trigger. You have 2-3 seconds to act. I gave you a specific situation, so I want a specific answer.

You're not going to be able to do anything to stop him in such a situation except point your gun and him and fire. If you miss, he's likely going to point his gun at you and shoot you, and then go and shoot the woman and child anyway when he's done killing you.

The only chance to save the people in this situation is to shoot the soldier. You may not have to kill him, just wound him enough so he won't shoot. But it's the only option, monkie. Otherwise you will let him kill these people, and you will spend the rest of your life tormented over the fact you let a Nazi murder two innocent people when you could have done something about it.

It's nice to be idealistic, but your ideals are not practical. Situations where violence in self-defense is the only option are real, and it's an insult to the many people who have unwillingly had to defend themselves in such a way to suggest they just didn't try hard enough to be peaceful. Violent situations happen quickly, and there will be situations where there is no time or alternative to do anything else. Police officers encounter them all the time, and if they second-guessed the use of force when it was necessary, a lot of innocent people would end up dead.

Total pacifism only would work in a world without evil, and that is not a world we live in or will live in anytime soon. Fantasy is nice, but in the real world, people will have to use force to defend themselves or others who are innocent against those who seem to harm them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ethics are about what things should be not what things are. There is nothing detached from reality in ethics. don't confuse morality with ethics.

First of all, I see no difference with "morality" and "ethics" and I use them interchangably. Secondly, even if I use your definition, Floyd did use "moral compass" in his message. Can't you read?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
A hero is one that makes a courageous and a ethically positive act, and since if one would refuse the draft he would be denied the possibility to make an act that is more ethically positive than dodging the draft, the thing above is not necessary. Unless you think that resisting the draft is the most moral thing possible.

You are generalising here. Not all wars are morally justifed. If a person gets drafted into an unjust war, how would this person be more courageous and makes an "ethically positive act?"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I said you are standing where the camera is, which means he's getting ready to shoot the woman and child in the picture as you watch.

I can't be 100% certain that the soldier (can't tell if that's an SS or a Nazi from the picture) is going to shoot the woman and the kid. He could be aiming for something beyond the picture to the right.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I can't be 100% certain that the soldier (can't tell if that's an SS or a Nazi from the picture) is going to shoot the woman and the kid. He could be aiming for something beyond the picture to the right.

That's a stretch. After all, the woman is clutching her child in fear, turned away from the soldier.

It is indeed an SS soldier (Not sure why you distinguish "SS" and "Nazi," since one had to be a Nazi to join the SS...). This was snapped a moment before he shot the woman. He was executing a Jewish mother and her child (this was taken in the Ukraine, I believe).

That's why I posted the pic, as it was a real situation where this soldier shot an innocent mother and child. Reality gets in the way of fluffy, happy ideals.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Gandhi was a hero, and he chose not to fight.

No, he got other people to fight for him, like all politicans and generals do.

Gandi was just an ambitous lawyer, who saw that the
British could be shamed out of India, by a civilzed rebellion, rather that the violent rebellions that failed
in the past.

Gandi?

The real heroes are the people not in the history books.

[Az]

First of all, I see no difference with "morality" and "ethics" and I use them interchangably. Secondly, even if I use your definition, Floyd did use "moral compass" in his message. Can't you read?

Morality and ethics are different things. I could dig up a website if you insist.

You are generalising here. Not all wars are morally justifed. If a person gets drafted into an unjust war, how would this person be more courageous and makes an "ethically positive act?"

I never said that all wars are just. I wanted to counter Floyd's point that dodging the draft is always the most moral thing to do in a situation when you're drafted, even the war is justified, and moral.

[Ozz]

The guy workin' saturday so you spoilered whiners
got working telephones.

IS/IT sucks

Should have been a bricklayer.

[Switch]

Re: Who Are the Real Heroes?

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, who are the real heroes? Those who fight wars, or those who refuse to fight?

Those who know when to fight, when not to, and act with that wisdom.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Ozz
The real heroes are the people not in the history books.

That's a rather large generalization. Are you saying that if anyone is mentioned in a history book for a heroic act, they are thusly unheroic?

And let me guess...everything that happens is part of a government conspiracy?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My vote is obvious (those who refuse, naturally).

Just curious why you think you need to be validated at ACS.
Someone with courage of conviction, shouldn't care less.

[monolith94]

Those who fight to defend their homes from invaders are heros.
Those who refuse to fight for invaders are heros.
Simple.
Interesting discussion on violence & the bible, btw.

[David Floyd]

monkspider,

I think Boris got you on the picture question, and I think DinoDoc got you on the "Jesus was a pacifist" question.

Sprayber,

This is the most self centered thread in poly history. Someone is trying to work their way into being a hero by intellectial discussion. Of course, made possible on the backs of all those people that have chosen, for whatever reason, to stop thinking entirely about themselves. A hero is someone who has everything to lose and still chooses to risk death because there is a greater good to be considered. And no, heroes aren't just soldiers.

I don't care if you think I'm a hero or not. I'm not dodging a draft, although if I was, yes, I'd consider myself to be a hero. Your definition of heroism is OK, but my definition would be more along the lines of the following: "One who does what is morally right without concern for the consequences to himself or others."

[SlowwHand]

Well, since I'm ignored...
Have you gone here http://www.objector.org/ , or anywhere; or are you counting on just making your thoughts known here will suffice?
The way you have this thread worded could be viewed as, at a minimum, insulting.
Just so you know, if you didn't know already; which I'm sure you probably did.