Are soldiers 'heroes'

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think that is the case. We can examine the Vietnam War and certaintly U.S. soldiers were not going out of their way to protect innocent civilians.

Perhaps we can examine the British Empire with their involvement in Zululand and such, the soldiers weren't protecting anything except the interest of their specific nations.

A soldier (nationally), in pure definition, is someone who serves in the armed forces of their specific nation.

What a specific soldier does within this role is irrelevant as that boils down to the personality.

Therefore, the pure ideal of a soldier then would be to serve their country to their fullest potential as they are members of that nations armed forces. As Notorious said, at that level is becomes more of following orders than anything else.
e.g. protecting the nations interests, etc. Regardless of the cost and means.

In this way, I see no reason to call them heroic as they are merely following orders. I am sure if you were to ask a soldier if he/she was a hero they would rightfully decline it.

Mostly soldiers are very young men who don't fully understand the risk they are under.

I'm saying it's wrong to kill. It's right to protect innocents. Crossing the wrong of killing for the protection of innocents is right but doesn't nullify that you killed for it. I don't expect it to make much sense. I don't need it to make much sense, since it is my personal belief and I understand it. Life at all is important to me, it's that simple.

I'll phrase it as this. I love those who protect innocents despite killing to do so. Killing to me is wrong but so is the killing intended by the other individual. As I said, I value life and if I can save several at the cost of one I would. I'm not so arrogant and egoistic as to let numerous die because of a personal belief. I'm willing to sacrifice my belief for the life of another. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong.

Example: I consider robbery wrong. If I needed the money to save someone for whatever reason, I'd do it anyway. Wrong or not. I'm willing to cross the line of wrong in order to do right. That doesn't make the wrong right. Just justified.

I'm not so important in my beliefs to sacrifice another. Simple as that. I also don't judge another for doing it. That doesn't change my belief.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
I'm saying it's wrong to kill. It's right to protect innocents. Crossing the wrong of killing for the protection of innocents is right but doesn't nullify that you killed for it. I don't expect it to make much sense. I don't need it to make much sense, since it is my personal belief and I understand it. Life at all is important to me, it's that simple.

I'll phrase it as this. I love those who protect innocents [b]despite killing to do so. Killing to me is wrong but so is the killing intended by the other individual. As I said, I value life and if I can save several at the cost of one I would. I'm not so arrogant and egoistic as to let numerous die because of a personal belief. I'm willing to sacrifice my belief for the life of another. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong.

Example: I consider robbery wrong. If I needed the money to save someone for whatever reason, I'd do it anyway. Wrong or not. I'm willing to cross the line of wrong in order to do right. That doesn't make the wrong right. Just justified.

I'm not so important in my beliefs to sacrifice another. Simple as that. I also don't judge another for doing it. That doesn't change my belief. [/B]

What do you mean exactly?

Originally posted by Notorious1
Mostly soldiers are very young men who don't fully understand the risk they are under.

I am just giving my idea on what the pure, unfilitered ideal of a soldier would be by examining the definition of the word.

It's a role, a role is not heroic, the people within a role can be heroic if that is in there personality. But in reality, if they break orders in any way to commit an act of heroism than they are not living up to the ideal of a soldier.

Originally posted by Liberator
I am just giving my idea on what the pure, unfilitered ideal of a soldier would be by examining the definition of the word.

It's a role, a role is not heroic, the people within a role can be heroic if that is in there personality. But in reality, if they break orders in any way to commit an act of heroism than they are not living up to the ideal of a soldier.

I agree, Soldiers are drones rather than heroes. In my experience usually not very bright either.

Originally posted by Notorious1
I agree, Soldiers are drones rather than heroes. In my experience usually not very bright either.

I am sure there are bright soldiers within an army. It's just by the nature of the role that an IDEAL soldier would be considered a drone. That is what would make them ideal, they would follow orders without question regardless of the consequence or cost.

Originally posted by Notorious1
What do you mean exactly?

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't think that is the case. We can examine the Vietnam War and certaintly U.S. soldiers were not going out of their way to protect innocent civilians.

Perhaps we can examine the British Empire with their involvement in Zululand and such, the soldiers weren't protecting anything except the interest of their specific nations.

A soldier (nationally), in pure definition, is someone who serves in the armed forces of their specific nation.

What a specific soldier does within this role is irrelevant as that boils down to the personality.

Therefore, the pure ideal of a soldier then would be to serve their country to their fullest potential as they are members of that nations armed forces. As Notorious said, at that level is becomes more of following orders than anything else.
e.g. protecting the nations interests, etc. Regardless of the cost and means.

In this way, I see no reason to call them heroic as they are merely following orders. I am sure if you were to ask a soldier if he/she was a hero they would rightfully decline it.

Hmm... I suppose my definition is what I think soldiers SHOULD be, not necessarily what the role of a soldier actually is.

Originally posted by Liberator
What I am saying is that I do not think a role can be considered heroic. Whereas, a specific person perhaps within that role could be 'heroic'.

This can be then applied to all roles in society, not just soldiers.
If a mailman saves someone who is hurt, is he/she then a hero too?

Actually that's what I was saying too. You can't call all soldiers heroes or all soldiers villains. If a person performs a heroic deed, then that person is a hero.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Hmm... I suppose my definition is what I think soldiers SHOULD be, not necessarily what the role of a soldier actually is.

Actually that's what I was saying too. You can't call all soldiers heroes or all soldiers villains. If a person performs a heroic deed, then that person is a hero.

Exactly. It is all about the individual, not the role they are performing.

EDIT:

So, that is what I am trying to say. The role of soldier is not heroic because a role cannot be heroic. A human being can be heroic within any given role because of the fact that we are sentient.

Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly. It is all about the individual, not the role they are performing.

No, its all about the orders and the reasons for being in a conflict in the first place. Can any act in an illegal war be heroic?

Originally posted by Notorious1
No, its all about the orders and the reasons for being in a conflict in the first place. Can any act in an illegal war be heroic?

Yes, there can be acts of heroism committed on either side of the conflict.

The war itself is not heroic, the roles involved may not be heroic, but there are individuals that make up a group and these individuals can perform deeds of heroism.

I am not suggesting that war is any way, shape, or form heroic. I am suggesting however that people are able to think for themselves, and as such, can make choices on their own.

I am sure if you did some research you would find examples of soldiers directly ignoring orders or going out of their way to save someone rather than kill.

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, there can be acts of heroism committed on either side of the conflict.

The war itself is not heroic, the roles involved may not be heroic, but there are individuals that make up a group and these individuals can perform deeds of heroism.

I am not suggesting that war is any way, shape, or form heroic. I am suggesting however that people are able to think for themselves, and as such, can make choices on their own.

I am sure if you did some research you would find examples of soldiers directly ignoring orders or going out of their way to save someone rather than kill.

I would suggest any act in a villianous action will always be tainted by the purpose behind being there.

Originally posted by 753
seriously asking for examples in context

Daniel Pearle
Francis Nyaruri
Nicholas Berg

the list goes on and on. Journalists and aid workers are routinely beheaded.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
I'm saying it's wrong to kill. It's right to protect innocents. Crossing the wrong of killing for the protection of innocents is right but doesn't nullify that you killed for it. I don't expect it to make much sense. I don't need it to make much sense, since it is my personal belief and I understand it. Life at all is important to me, it's that simple.

I'll phrase it as this. I love those who protect innocents [b]despite killing to do so. Killing to me is wrong but so is the killing intended by the other individual. As I said, I value life and if I can save several at the cost of one I would. I'm not so arrogant and egoistic as to let numerous die because of a personal belief. I'm willing to sacrifice my belief for the life of another. That doesn't mean I don't think it's wrong.

Example: I consider robbery wrong. If I needed the money to save someone for whatever reason, I'd do it anyway. Wrong or not. I'm willing to cross the line of wrong in order to do right. That doesn't make the wrong right. Just justified.

I'm not so important in my beliefs to sacrifice another. Simple as that. I also don't judge another for doing it. That doesn't change my belief. [/B]

I don't think your view is as confusing as you are making it out to be. You would consider it wrong to kill, but right to do so to protect innocent people. So you don't actually think the act of killing to protect innocents is wrong, as you said, you consider it the right thing to do.

So, I think a better explanation of your view might be that killing innocent people, or killing unjustly is wrong. Your current explanation is lumping killing innocent people and killing to protect innocent people into one category of just "killing" but it's more complex that that. Those are really two different actions.

Not that I want to tell you what your beliefs are, but it sounds to me like this is what you're saying.

Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly. It is all about the individual, not the role they are performing.

EDIT:

So, that is what I am trying to say. The role of soldier is not heroic because a role cannot be heroic. A human being can be heroic within any given role because of the fact that we are sentient.

Ah, then we agree.

Originally posted by Notorious1
I would suggest any act in a villianous action will always be tainted by the purpose behind being there.

That isn't right, though. An action is not consider right or wrong based off of the actions that took place before hand.

An action is an action. It is right or wrong regardless of past actions.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ah, then we agree.

That isn't right, though. An action is not consider right or wrong based off of the actions that took place before hand.

An action is an action. It is right or wrong regardless of past actions.

The 'heroic' act would not have been needed if the villianous act had not been committed in the first place. Tainting the later action. There is no innocence or guilt, merely responsibility.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think your view is as confusing as you are making it out to be. You would consider it wrong to kill, but right to do so to protect innocent people. So you don't actually think the act of killing to protect innocents is wrong, as you said, you consider it the right thing to do.

So, I think a better explanation of your view might be that killing [B]innocent people, or killing unjustly is wrong. Your current explanation is lumping killing innocent people and killing to protect innocent people into one category of just "killing" but it's more complex that that. Those are really two different actions.

Not that I want to tell you what your beliefs are, but it sounds to me like this is what you're saying. [/B]

That's pretty precise 😛 I'd have explained it better in Swedish 😄

The fundamental point is: Killing is wrong, but in extreme situations justified.

Originally posted by Notorious1
The 'heroic' act would not have been needed if the villianous act had not been committed in the first place. Tainting the later action. There is no innocence or guilt, merely responsibility.

Irrelevant. The act is still heroic, or it's not. It doesn't matter what happened before.

Now, if a person performed a villainous act and then a heroic one because of that, the PERSON might not be heroic, but that does not make the ACT any less heroic.

Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
That's pretty precise 😛 I'd have explained it better in Swedish 😄

The fundamental point is: Killing is wrong, but in extreme situations justified.

Then we pretty much agree on that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Irrelevant. The act is still heroic, or it's not. It doesn't matter what happened before.

Now, if a person performed a villainous act and then a heroic one because of that, the PERSON might not be heroic, but that does not make the ACT any less heroic.

Then we pretty much agree on that.

Notoriousa is right pal, it's tainted!'

Originally posted by TacDavey
Then we pretty much agree on that.