Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[AverageBozo]

[...] How can it be otherwise?

That's an interesting thought. I don't necessarily agree, but I guess that with that logic one could say that people under tyrannies and corrupted government which monopolize law, force and power; are responsible for the acts and decisions that these governments take (let's say invade a neighbor country).

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. The citizens of a dictatorship are NOT responsible for the actions of their government, over which they have no control or authority. They did not appoint their government to govern on their behalf. Rather, their country was taken over by a tyrant, who rules by fear and force, as they all do.

How about when the dictator was initially elected by votes by the population? There are several countries that are ruled by governments that came to power by taking votes of its people, but then became dictators and ruling as they wish. Can't the voters be held responsible for the actions of the government that they chose?

Only those individuals who voted for the tyrant-to-be.

[LuckyR]

[...] How can it be otherwise?

That's an interesting thought. I don't necessarily agree, but I guess that with that logic one could say that people under tyrannies and corrupted government which monopolize law, force and power; are responsible for the acts and decisions that these governments take (let's say invade a neighbor country).

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. The citizens of a dictatorship are NOT responsible for the actions of their government, over which they have no control or authority. They did not appoint their government to govern on their behalf. Rather, their country was taken over by a tyrant, who rules by fear and force, as they all do.

How about when the dictator was initially elected by votes by the population? There are several countries that are ruled by governments that came to power by taking votes of its people, but then became dictators and ruling as they wish. Can't the voters be held responsible for the actions of the government that they chose?

Only those individuals who voted for the tyrant-to-be.

I respectfully disagree. If you vote against the creation of a military, lose the referendum, stay in the country and benefit from the actions of that military, IMO you are partially responsible for the military. With reward comes responsibility.

[Good_Egg]

Of course it is not a crime if a soldier kills the enemy because the soldier has been adviced to kill tke enemy by the authorities that define "crime".

You're right.

Either one believes in right and wrong, in an objective natural law against which it is possible to sin, ie. to commit a "moral crime", a crime against morality.

Or else one believes that the laws that human societies make are the only yardstick against which talk of wrongdoing is meaningful. In which case any soldier of the state who complies with the terms of engagement he's given by his duly-appointed officers is acting legally and that's the end of the matter.

Seems to me there's no middle ground.

By phrasing the thread title in terms of sin, we're invited to answer within a natural law framework. Which you're entirely free to deny.

Within that natural law framework, it seems to me that a soldier may kill in self-defence, I.e. kill someone who is actively trying to kill him or his fellow-soldiers or countrymen.

And he may kill someone who is wearing the uniform of the enemy, I.e. who has declared by donning that uniform an intention to kill him or his, even if they're not actively attempting that at this moment.

But he may not kill civilians (except in self-defence). That is the moral crime that Russians are committing in Ukraine.