I thanked both Wessexman and Celticlord for their posts three or four pages back, for bringing an intresting dimension to the discussion. I'd like to revisit it...the question is:
- When faced with an adversary who uses heinous and dishonorable methods:
1. To respond with whatever violence is necessary, even methods widely considered barbarous and dishonorable, if that is what is necessary to stop the adversary from futher threat to nation/family/etc.
2. To respond within the limitations of honor and civilized warfare, despite the adversary's heinous methods, in order to preserve the honor and morality of one's self and one's nation.
The only thing that preserves my honor and my morality is, to borrow from Cyrano, three feet of steel.
Therein lies the error of your philosophy. The civil restraints men of honor impose upon their conflicts are not the preservative of honor and morality, but are rather preserved by the conjoined honor and morality of every adversary; they are the conclusion, not the predicate. When even one adversary lays aside that honor and morality, and shreds the civil restraints previously maintained, that adversary invites upon himself the same unrestrained horrors he visits upon others. Against such an adversary, to refuse him the horrors he craves would a most ungentlemanly act.
...
There is no victory in sacrificing friends, family, or countrymen for the sake of benighted principle. Dead kin are a disgrace when strength and fortitude might have saved them.
Wessexman said:
The limits are as much for the preservation of your honour and morality, things partially formed and reflected on and by your family, community and country, as anything else.
They keep this vile baseness that you support at bay, they help to maintain something of civility and freedom, against this vileness that will spread and infect all once the veil in torn asunder.
...A man of respect, a conservative man, knows that his family and community have given him his morality, his personality to quite a degree and to sacrifice it to simply do anything to give them the basest security is to betray them and to partly pervert their victory and what will flow from it.
Very nicely expressed arguments on both sides (even if it did get slightly acrimonious later). I loved the Cyrano quote, btw, and Wessex I'd like to know the source of the long quote in your previous post, it's very intresting.
Personally, I find myself in between the two viewpoints. The Geneva Convention and similar treaties were intended to leave some civility in warfare, and humanity in the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. Yet, there was the assumption that the enemy would be civilized and honorable as well... in Vietnam, for example, the US faced a foe that did not honor the Geneva Convention/etc. In the war against terrorism, likewise.
In WW2 we destroyed civilian population centers as a means of destroying the will of the civilian populace to support their military and government in continuing to fight. We firebombed Dresden, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there's no arguing these were horrific acts that resulted in the death of noncombatants, including women and children.
Yet, we faced an enemy who did similar things, and who committed incredible atrocities, and indeed we were in a
war for survival. Losing would have meant allowing the world to be dominated by the Nazi's, with all that implies.
Does the end justify the means? Sometimes... if you can even accurately visualize a world run by Hitler and his ilk, it would give you nightmares.
At the same time, the idea of children coming to harm is appalling to me. As a father, I can't help but see any child being hurt or killed and thinking "that could be my child". I know it happens, in war. I know we can't always avoid "collateral damage." I do have issues with targeting civilians deliberately, even though I accept that it might be necessary in some extreme cases. It's a hard call, to me, and one that doesn't sit well and never will.
To carry the issue into personal analogy, let's assume we lived in some lawless state of anarchy. Say my neighbor and I have a dispute, and he wants to fight an equal and fair duel with me, and that will be the end of it one way or another. If the circumstances made it seem necessary, and if I believed it would end the conflict without further threat to my family, I'd probably give him his duel. He's an "honorable" opponent.
On the other hand, let's say the neighbor says, credibly, that "one dark night he's going to kill me, my wife, and my children." Okay, thanks for the warning bud. :mrgreen: I'm going to kill him quickly in the most expedient manner possible, preferably by surprise from behind. He is a dishonorable opponent; not only is he undeserving of an "honorable combat", you couldn't trust him to keep it "fair" anyway.
Even though he'd threatened my family, however, I would not go after his wife and children in this scenario. If he's the sole threat, there's no reason to.
What if it went beyond that, though? What if his young sons vowed they'd kill me and my sons at some unspecified later date? What if his wife vowed she'd see my entire family dead, even if she had to raise her entire household to live for that goal only?
One solution would be to kill the lot of them, women, boys, girls and babes.
I find that solution morally very distasteful. I'd rather move my family to another state and change my name. :mrgreen:
Okay, maybe moving away is not an option for some reason... what do I do? Frankly I'm not sure. Fear for my own children would push me to kill them all, but revulsion at the idea of killing children would make that very difficult.
There are some things I won't do,
no matter what the cost is. There are some moral issues that simply go beyond all self-intrest, imo. There is a
short list of things I wouldn't do even to save my own child...
deliberately torturing someone else's children being one of them.
I suppose my position is something like this:
1. You can fight honorably if your adversary is honorable.
2. If your adversary uses evil and vicious methods against you, it is possible that you may have to go beyond your normal boundaries to beat him...BUT:
3. There
is a line that you can't cross, not for your adversary's sake but for the sake of your own morality and the example your actions set for your own side.
Everyone's "line" is probably a little different. Mine is probably further out than Wessexman's, maybe not quite as far as Celticlord's.
Anyway, I thought that aspect of the debate was intresting enough to bring back for another look.
G.
