[Best RPG Story?]

Anybody else does like Dragon Quest V and VIII ?

[The morality of war]

Umm, I'm not sure how a situation would work when in wartime you have to choose between saving your innocent civilians and saving those of your enemy. There would almost have to be soldiers involved somewhere in the dilemma. If civilians are getting tangled up with each other, then they likely aren't acting like "innocent civilians" regardless. It is more likely in that scenario that the foreign civilians are spying or carrying out some other secret military operation in your territory if that is happening. But the statement still stands. Morally, saving x amount of lives is always better than saving x-100 lives. However, from a ruler's standpoint, when you are bound to protect your own people, you should always try to do what is best for your own before doing what is best for others.

I agree that the situations are usually more complicated than simply having 2 groups and pointing a finger at one and dismissing the other. But theoretically, such a situation could be possible, even though unlikely. For example: we have 2 terrorist hideouts, one has 10 American hostages and the other 100 French hostages. The terrorists are about to kill both groups of hostages, and the ones to free them are American troops who have only enough forces and time to free 1 group at a time, therefore increasing the possibility that the other hostage group will be massacred meanwhile. So, what do you think should they do? Save 10 compatriots or 100 foreigners first?

Sorry if the situation I alleged seems too unrealistic, but I couldn't think of a better example just now.

[The morality of war]

Again, one has to use common sense there. Sacrificing 1000 to save 10 is somewhat ridiculous, but a ruler is duty-bound to their people. That's why they were (hopefully) elected as the ruler of their country. A ruler isn't just any ordinary person. They are chosen because they have desirable traits which would make them a good leader for a country. They are supposed to defend their people, and if they don't do that, they are a failure as a ruler.

Also, that is correct that your compatriots are not intrinsically more valuable than your enemies. However, if they are your compatriots, then you should help them, without worrying about your enemies as much. If you don't have to kill your enemies, that's a good thing, but protecting compatriots is more important, in my mind.

I understand what you are saying, but you use the term "enemies". If they are civilians, then even if I were a ruler, I wouldn't consider them enemies. If it's a battle between 2 armies of soldiers, of course for the commander it's better if the enemy loses many and he loses few. The situation I was talking about is a "neutral" one, not about allies and enemies, but when you have to choose between foreign civilians/innocents/unarmed people or whatever we call them and the same kind of people from your country. Theoretically, I think the rule "majority is more important than minority" still applies, even though sacrificing any number of people even to save 10000000000000000000 more would still be an impossibly hard decision, even though a logical one. I personally wouldn't like to be responsible for any death even if this death saved lives. I admit I wouldn't be fit to be a ruler and don't have this kind of ambitions. But, if my opinion had any relevance in choosing a ruler, I would prefer one who doesn't reason in terms of "categories" and if had to sacrifice somebody, would have chosen the majority to save, no matter of their nationality.

On the other hand, there may be a situation where I couldn't have followed this rule myself: for example, if I had to choose between a close relative and a major quantity of strangers. This is a situation I can only hope to never be in.

[The morality of war]

A ruler's duty is to their own people, not to others. First and foremost, they must protect their people, and if that means sacrificing lives from their enemy's ranks, then so be it. Harsh, but realistic.

Yet, what about the numbers? If it's 1000 foreigners vs 10 compatriots (especially if these 1000 are civilians, maybe women, children and elderly people)? "Duty", you say. In this case it's just an excuse for a coldly made calculation and a "plea bargain" deal with your own conscience.

Anyway, I don't think the discussion will get anywhere. "Majority is more important than minority" I can understand, but "compatriot minority" being allegedly more important than "foreign majority" is a logic that shouldn't be used outside video games.

[The morality of war]

Sometimes an emperor has to make such tough decisions for the good of his country. Your view has merit, but the opposite is true. If he wasn't able to sacrifice a few for the good of the many, he wouldn't be fit to be emperor.

But unfortunately it's not always sacrificing few for the good of the many. Sometimes it's sacrificing many foreigners to save a few compatriots. That's why I have always thought that "patriotism" is a concept to be very careful with.

[The morality of war]

I have already said most of what I had in mind in that other thread, but to sum it up, my opinion is that, while war is a horrible thing by itself, unfortunately at the moment it is impossible to completely eliminate it from this planet, because too few people (especially too few people with power) are interested in the effort. However, recognizing it as something inevitable and embracing the concept are two different things. I personally abhor every kind of military actions except ones finalized to defend something or situations like freeing hostages from terrorists etc.

Also, would like to respond to Blah2127's quote from the other thread.

As a disclosure on my beliefs, a peasant is less important to me an the Emperor of France. That is because everything an emperor does matters, while a peasant affects relatively little. A successful war can do a nation a lot of good, so by that measure it would be pragmatically justifiable for a leader to win a war at the cost of so,e of their people. I can see pretty well that our two moral compasses are pretty much incompatible, so what do you say we bury the hatchet now?

I agree to bury the hatchet, only would like to say why in my opinion the emperor may be less important from a moral point of view than a peasant or other "normal" citizen: because a "normal" citizen may be somebody who values human life and is unable to kill or give an order to kill, while an emperor is almost always capable of such things, otherwise he wouldn't be emperor.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Except Napoleon did not aim to destroy Russia as a nation state. What he intended to do was to force the Tsar to keep his promise, nothing more, nothing less. How would you intend for Napoleon to fix this? If let Russia break it's promise, the other European nations would follow, threatening the territorial integrity of France. War is not about ethics, it's about cause and effect, and to let Russia get away with breaking its treaty would have a negative effect for Napoleon.

Reasoning like a politician or like a "player", I can understand (but not agree or justify). However, I am a simple/normal person. If I was there in their way, my house would have probably been burned by French soldiers and I and my family would have been killed. In such a situation, it would be absurd on my part to care about the politicians' games of power. Here goes my life and the life of my friends and relatives. Any Russian peasant victim of Napoleonic destruction would agree with me. Politicians always act superior, high and mighty, but they are human too, they don't want to die. Yet, it's so easy for them to sacrifice countless lives of "lower" people. Isn't this hypocritical on their part?

And I doubt France would have lost their territories except for the conquered ones. It wouldn't have been a big empire, but their original land would still be in their possess, I don't think the French would be inept at defending it.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Actually, the Coalition was the one who started the vast majority of the wars. Napoleon's invasion of Russia happened because Russia refused to embargo the UK despite signing a treaty promising to do so. The only unjustifiable war Napoleon launched was the invasion of Spain, but Spain wasn't exactly in the right there either, being a borderline Catholic theocracy and all.

Invading a country because they refused to maintain an embargo? And this would be ethically justified? It's like killing a person for having lied to you. It's not like Russia attacked France to force Napoleon to defend himself.

Also, you answer that question. How do generals generally behave in times of peace?

They are not all the same, and I can't say about all countries, I haven't even been to the USA. I am Russian (though live in Italy now) and I can say Russian generals are pretty often involved in crimes, including violent ones. I mean, of course they don't go aroung shooting people personally, but ordering a hit or two on somebody who bothers them or smuggling drugs from Asia, why not (according to them)? As for Italian generals, I can't say, Italy isn't really that much involved in wars today, even though send several troops occasionaly in Iraq or Afghanistan to stand guard.

By the way, MANY crime groups in Russia are made of former soldiers. The "mafias" made of veterans of the Afghanistan war (the one that was under Soviet Union) have become almost legendary (in the negative sense of the word). I am very much convinced that war has a very negative effect on human psychology. Can you point me even one soldier who has been on the battleground and didn't radically change as a person after returning home? I am not saying they all become violent, but the ones who have conscience suffer greatly because of such experiences.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Good point. Let me give you examples of wars where both sides were right: the Napoleonic Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the Franco Prussian War, the Russo Turkish War, and the Crimean War. There you go.

Let's take the Napoleonic wars, for example. How were they just for both sides? Didn't Napoleon definitely go out of limits with unnecessary conquest just to bulid an empire, whether it was to satisfy personal lust for power or was it because of patriotism and desire to see his country stronger?

The problem is you can't make anything theoretical here, because war tends to produce such different circumstances. Why should a general risk his war effort to save some civilians on the opposing side? As long as they don't go out of their way to kill civilians they are not doing anything wrong. Provide proof, or any evidence at all, for this claim.

I don't have "physical evidence" like in a crime proceeding, for me all necessary evidence is simple common sense and human consience. If a general doesn't care about diminishing civilians' deaths while being in power to do so, there is definitely something wrong with the man. It may be only my personal opinion, but I think such people are dangerous even in times of peace in a civil society. People who disregard ethics only bring trouble. How can you imagine such an individual behaving in times of peace, if he simply doesn't understand why should human life be regarded with respect?

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

@Dwalin: I don't see how you got that impression from my post, although I can think of a few wars that were quite just, namely Korea, WWII, and the American Civil War. I don't debate to change opinions, anyway, I do it for the thrill.

The wars are just for those who are defending themselves. For example, WWII it's not like it was just for the nazis, it was just for the countries on the defensive. And avoiding killing civilians is theoretically always possible (or at least, GREATLY diminishing civilian deaths is always possible) it's just only the minority cares at all (surely not the commanders and politicians who sent them). And civilians may be killed in different circumstances. One thing is striking one accidentally in a shootout with an enemy soldier on a street of the conquered city, it's another willingly enter somebody's house, kill the owner and rape his wife just because they are German (for example), to take "revenge" for what the Germans did in the conquered country. In this case, it's not even revenge imo, because "revenge" means repaying somebody who wronged you in the same way and with the same methods. If you kill not the very person who wronged you or was involved in this, but an innocent bystander, then it doesn't even qualify as "eye for eye" revenge. It's just senseless lust for blood.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Ah, but it depends on what you call an aggressor, doesn't it? Both sides could be called the aggressor in WWI, and in the final stages of WWII the Germans were defending their country from invasion. Who was the aggressor in Vietnam? The world is not black and white. Regardless, you dodged my main point by nitpicking a minor point.

I "dodged" your main point because your main point seems to be based on the idea that wars are a thing that is not always to be condemned. I absolutely disagree with this, and haven't replied about this because it's pointless to try to change your opinion like it would be pointless for you to try to change mine.

And yes, in the final stages the Germans were defending themselves. If there was a possibility of ending the war and removing Hitler from power without invading Germany, it would surely be a better solution. It's just that, hadn't the allies entered German territory, the Germans would have re-grouped and attacked again, starting everything all over. But regardless of this, killing German civilians was a crime, it wasn't necessary at all.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

To use a more simple example, you hopefully find nothing wrong with killing soldiers who are not surrendering.

It depends on the circumstances and which side you are on. If you voluntarily enlisted in the army of a country which is the aggressor in a war, then killing people who are defending their homes is morally extremely reprehensible, even though "legally" not a crime.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I would even question the use of the term innocent in a total war. In WWII, for example, civilians worked in the factories. It only makes sense to defeat the enemy by cutting off their method of production. Simple.

It's easy to judge when it's not YOU or YOUR relatives who get killed. If you would react differently in those cases, then what you just said is hypocrisy. If you wouldn't care, it would be lack of basic human feelings.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Lol how are wars diminishing in scale? It follows that as more people populate the planet (and you don't have to be an expert in demographics to know that our current population growth is exponential), the wars will be larger in scale. In addition, with our new technologies (high-powered tanks and aircraft, drones, nuclear weapons), the entire world is basically a powder keg waiting to be set off. I don't follow how wars are going to be diminishing anytime soon, even if we are having a time of "relative" peace now.

I mean, that comparing to the ancient times and middle ages, the last century has been RELATIVELY peaceful. Earlier, there was barely a time when a country wasn't engaged in a war. Just a random example, the Roman empire: apart from the reign of Antoninus Pius and the very beginning of Marcus Aurelius there was barely a long enough peaceful time, and even in this specific period there were revolts and pressures on the borderlines here and there. Romans were constantly either attacking or being attacked.

What will happen in the future I have no idea. Surely, now we have the weapons with the potential to destroy the entire planet if used. I can only hope the politicians will be intelligent enough not to use them.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

@Dwalin- But none of those proxy wars would have happened if it weren't for the Cold War. You can't treat the Vietnam War as distinct from the Cold War; if USA and the Soviets had been best buddies after WW2 ended, then the Vietnam War would never have happened.

I know. That's why I agree with people who state that no matter whether we consider wars a "right" or "wrong" thing, given the current state of things on the planet, it's impossible that the wars don't happen. Maybe not as often as in the Middle Ages for example, but still. However, since the quantity of wars and their scale tend to diminish with time (except for WWI and WWII), maybe (just maybe) there is hope that one days they will end, even though I don't think it will happen any soon.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of the Cold War. Just because the Soviet Union and USA didn't directly attack each other doesn't mean it didn't result in an awful lot of deaths through proxy wars (of which the Vietnam War was just one), both during the time of the Cold War and after. A great deal, if not all, of USA's military efforts since WW2 have been either part of the Cold War or a direct consequence of actions they took during the Cold War.

Those proxy wars were horrible too, what I meant is that it would be even worse if there had been an open war between the USA and Soviet Union. It would have likely led to the destruction of the planet. Rather than defining it "better situation", it would be more correct to say a "lesser evil" maybe.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

so, your personal response was that because a civilian could be killed, no one should participate in war. i hope i am following the debate correctly so far. anyway, i chimed in and said that operates on the assumption that nations can war without killing civilians, which was never refuted. this is where your personal ideologies came in. but they don't matter in this at all. what you or i want to be isn't what is. if we accept that civilian casualties are inevitable, and that conflicts are inevitable, where do you stand now?

I can stand only by what I can personally do: not participating in wars and trying to convince others not to do so. It's not like there is much choice: you either embrace the whole war thing or not. I choose not to, even if my actions won't be relevant on a global scale. What else could a conscientious objector possibly do?

The idea that it is always wrong to kill innocents is an idea that needs to die in a fire.

it was not wrong in cases such as Hiroshima or the Lusitania

No comment..... I can understand every opinion that so far has been expressed in this topic, including the rest of your post, but this is just... I don't know what to say, I hope you said it just because we all are talking on a theoretical level, without actually having DIRECT knowledge or being involved in killings of innocents or even seeing that happening directly in front of us.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

If you ignore what actually happened during that enormous block of time, then yeah it is.

I am not saying the Cold War was a good situation, since it could lead to a real war anyway. I am just saying that any kind of situation where there are no actual wars/violence taking place are better (or a "lesser evil") than military actions actually taking place.

take a political science course and one of the first things you'll learn is that there's no simple good vs. evil in politics and war.

In my opinion, war IS evil (one of the many evils possible in the world). That we have no power to stop them is another discussion

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Churchil and Air Marshall Arthur Harris ordered ww2's night bombing on the likes of Dresden. A NON-MILITARY TARGET!

And this is a war crime too, if not legally, then morally and according to common sense.

No matter how much one might want to strut around acting superior, one can't talk about an era of time unless either one was there in the front lines, or if one is an expert in that period of history.

I think the ones acting superior are the ones who decide about sacrificing so many human lives, meaning politicians who start wars. They are the ones who act superior while being just normal human beings who are made of flesh and bones like everybody else.

this thread isn't going to end well.

I hope this won't be the case, as long it doesn't go to personal attacks and insults. There is always a way to discuss peacefully I think.

i've got ideals that i think if everyone followed would make the world an overall better place too. but those things are irrelevant...

ONE person is always irrelevant, but big numbers that can make change are made of single persons like you and me.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Welcome to the Cold War, where the borderlines were ideological, the countries had buffers between them, and the battles themselves were largely fought by proxy.

Still better than an actual war with dead people?

ideally, yeah. but, coming back to reality, where this isn't the case, what then?

In real life, I personally think a person should behave following their conscience, just how they would behave if it was in their power to change things, even if it will bring no global results. I mean, even when the struggle for something is hopeless (like for example it's hopeless to completely eliminate violent crime from the planet), it still makes sense and is worthy of respect that some people still try to achieve this objective. Same thing with eliminating wars: you can't change humanity, but you can do your best at least in what is in your power.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

you're operating on the assumption that it's possible to be in war and not kill innocents. i think this is impossible.

That is likely impossible. That's why I think more people refuse to participate in any kind of war except defending the borderlines of their countries, better it is.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

some people feel like they are obliged to fight for their country after what it has done for them. Kinda like the social contract.

Why? They are adult intelligent people, they understand they may have to kill innocents if they fight for their country. Why making this choice at all if your country isn't the one on the defense? And even then, if your country WAS initially on the defensive, and then passed on the offensive, why pillage, kill and rape foreign citizens who haven't done anything? Like for example the Russian/Soviet army that was initially defending from nazi Germans, but when it passed through Germany on its way to Berlin, it committed many horrible things.

Military service is not mandatory, but it is mandatory for a male to sign up for the draft when he is 18. So in a way, yes it is.

You may still try to avoid it: feign illness, move to the other country (I know this sounds extreme, but so is killing even ONE innocent). I really don't want to get personal, but it seems like we are discussing Fire Emblem here, not a real-life war with real dead innocent people.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

the difference is soldiers are pretty much owned by the government. this is not so for hired killers. hired killers don't owe anything to anyone, and don't belong to anyone.

Independent professional hitmen who offer their "services" to anybody for money, don't belong to anyone, I agree. But mafia/Cosa Nostra "soldiers" or the Colombian or Mexican cartel hitmen or other members of organizations like that, they often kill for free, and it's not necessarily for pleasure, it may well be because they are extremely afraid of the boss, for their own life or the life of their family members. They too may see themselves as "soldiers" of a sort, the only difference is that their actions aren't legalized by the government.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

In war, a soldier does it out of necessity to follow orders.

In a contract killing scheme, a hitman does it likely out of personal motivation or debt.

The difference is that in war, a soldier is duty bound to do his job. Failure to follow orders will resort in charges of insubordination, military court, and the like. In a killing scheme, the person follows their desires or they made a conscious choice that got them into debt. Big difference there.

Yes, an innocent would be killed, but would YOU be making that thought process in the middle of war? Especially as war becomes more and more modernized, the difference between innocent and enemy becomes a thinner and thinner line.

How does the soldier justification differentiate from a hitman justification? A hitman (many professional ones are former soldiers by the way, and it's not just a coincidence) can also say he was "stressed" and "forced" to do the job; for a debt, or whatever else. He can say that, hadn't he done the "job", he would have been killed, or his family would have been killed, or he would have been framed by the police, or whatever. It may legally be considered as "extenuating circumstances" maybe, so he will be given less than a life sentence or given an elegibility for parole, but still, killing is still killing (if we talk from a "moral" point of view, not just "legal"), and the action is still a horrible thing, even if there is an explanation (but not justification) for it.

And I wouldn't be there in the first place, responding to your last question. I am not American, but as far as I know in the USA military service isn't mandatory for every person? There is always the possibility to refuse, even if it will create you problems.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

Then blame the government for getting involved in the war. Or the officers for giving the orders. Soldiers just follow orders. Unless they are sociopathic, it's highly unlikely that they will go out of their way to kill innocents. They're just following orders, as messed up as they may be.

Of course I blame the government and the officers too. But their responsibility doesn't absolve the ones who pulled the trigger, for whatever reason. I see no difference between this and a contract killing scheme, like:

Government politician (the one who gives the killing order) -> Military commander (middleman) -> soldier (hitman who pulls the trigger).

What's the difference? There is the same result, a murdered innocent (or plenty of them, in case it's a war and not just a contract killing in a "peaceful" zone)