Nationality And Ethical Responsibility

StuckInTheSixties:

Are the citizens of a particular nationality ethically "responsible" for the acts of their government?

What if a citizen disagrees with the acts of their government? Should they be held ethically "responsible" regardless?

LiptonCambell: Absolutely not.

StuckInTheSixties:

Okay. Let's put that to the test.

Undoubtedly, there were Germans opposed to the Fuhrer and the Third Reich. There would be no practical way to wage war only against the Nazi warmongers, and spare the others.

Should the Allies have foregone waging war against Germany to protect those not ethically responsible?

LiptonCambell: Nope! They should have fought the soldiers! It'd be an unfortunate situation if they were conscripted, but yea...

Serabi: Yes, they should be held responsible. If the are too stupid to change the government, the sheep must shut up and put up.

Dawn: How can they be "responsible sheep" when they didn't agree in the first place, Serabi?

StuckInTheSixties:

Lipton says:
"They should have fought the soldiers!"

I assume you mean that German citizens opposed to the Fuhrer should have turned against their own government, and become traitors. Though rational in the abstract sense, that would be infinitely impractical. It would essentially be committing suicide.

LiptonCambell: >>>If the are too stupid to change the government, the sheep must shut up and put up.

There's nothing- not one thing- that your government does that you disagree with?

---

>>>I assume you mean that German citizens opposed to the Fuhrer

Well, not exactly.....I mean, do I think the German citizens should have fought the Fuhrer? Yea, and I'm pretty sure some did....but that's not at all what I meant when I wrote my previous post...

What I meant was the allies, as opposed to not going to war, should only commit this war against soldiers and people in the military....I know, its vaguely hippy talk and doesn't have much role in the real world, but I was looking for a simple answer(perhaps too simple, though...)- that soldiers should fight soldiers, since soldiers are really the only ones who are responsible for enforcing government actions(that and the police)

StuckInTheSixties:

Lipton says:
"allies should only commit this war against soldiers and people in the military."

Yes, indeed, that is hopelessly simplistic when applied to the real world.

If civilians - not in uniform, not actual troops - but who participate directly in the functioning of the war machine, factory workers assembling tanks or aircraft, for example - should they have been considered off limits by the Allies solely on the basis that they're not in uniform?

How about the members of government that run the war machine? They're not uniformed troops, but they make the decisions and issue the orders.

The point that I'm making is that the days are long gone when armies met on an open battlefield, and everyone else was a civilian that could stand off to the and witness to the warfare. Ideally, if war had to be fought, each side could simply take their best gladiator, put them both in the ring, and the winner prevails. Minimum damage that way.

The only distinct "line" between soldier and civilian is the uniform that some put on. Everything else is blurred.

But let's try to apply this ethical dilemma to the real world. I used the historical example of World War II, and I'll continue in that vein.

There are countless examples where the separation between civilian and military becomes impossible.

Civilian roads and bridges used by military for movement of troops. Should those be off limits?

Civilian harbors used by the military - off limits?

One side assembles artillery amongst it's own citizens. The other side is faced with a decision:

~ direct counter-battery fire against that artillery, and kill civilians in the process
~ allow that artillery to fire on their troops with impunity

I'm sure you understand that I could make an endlessly long list of perfectly credible, historically accurate examples where the mixture of civilian and military forces those kinds of choices. I used the example of World War II Germany. I'll further say that if the Allies had adhered to the ethical conduct you propose, they simply could not have prevailed.

What if one side spares civilians, but the other doesn't? Does your ethical constraint still apply?

lavendar_star: I think to a certain extent we are it depends on the context of what your government is doing or has done. for example I would say a significant number of Brits did not want to go to war (Iraq) and many people protested about not going the biggest in British history, the New Labour party (Tony Blair who lied to the country n to the House of commons about the reasons for going) still took us to war. I think the continual protests in America against the Vietnam war was the main reason for the withdrawal, our governments do many things in our name which people don't agree with and to stay silent on the issue could be argue makes us responsible for their action..

Another example is the fact that the UK makes a lot of money of the arms trade and the present Conservative government who are in a coalition (with their far smaller bed fellows the liberal dem) are selling weapons to the Saudi Arabia government despite as the BBC citing being the biggest open prison for women and that they are also giving weapons to another oppressive regime Bahrain. So for both these examples I cant see how people who disagree with these twos action can be responsible when our government pretty much ignores us and goes on with their own agenda.

However, on certain other issues one can see how if the population don't demand action on certain issues we the citizens are sometimes libel, in the UK for a so called civilised rich Western country we have shockingly 10 rapes a minute and of 15, 000 cases that do go courts( vast majority dont- most women do not report it) only a 1,000 get prosecuted. This issue needs to be address, however, there is no big public outcry and some people actually put the blame on women, this why I don't think this government or the previous have done nothing to address it.

I should say governments globally do what they do for their own self interest much of the time, we had a central New labour government (filled with bunch of self serving Middle class people) who have done many unpopular things and now we have a Conservative government filled with bunch of rich posh toffs who seem to be benefiting their fellow rich folk, a change of government doesn't necessarily grant a change in politics.

Comrade_:
When I first read your post I was thinking along the lines of the Government being democratically elected by the people, which might make it seem that the people as a whole should be 'responsible' especially if they don't protest against the action of their government..but I think anyone who knows the system will know that 'the people' are not in full control and there's a slim chance of any 100% consensus on any decision.

Concerning the example of the Germans, I don't think they were in control of their Government and as a whole not to be blamed. While some say that 'Hitler' was elected democratically this was not necessary true, there are deeper issues in that too.

To put oneself in that situation where you have a dictator on an individual level, how will you address the issue that they were forced to work in such factories? -Work or death/tortured.

How will you monitor that your 'ethical' soldiers are not slaughtering civilians under false pretences?
Going to war with a country will it be allowed to completely eradicate persons of that country? (civilians or military wise?) To what result? Who were you going in there to protect then?

There're two things:
invasion: to protect the people there or 'disarm' (idk a better word) a threat
or
being invaded: you have to protect your people and destroy the arm force that enters.

Think most of the issue you're talking about lies with an 'invasion' and that is something to go in depth about. To consider why you are invading and what is the expected results. Is it only to test new weaponry and slaughter or is it to protect the civilians etc.
------------------------------------------------------
If civilians - not in uniform, not actual troops - but who participate directly in the functioning of the war machine, factory workers assembling tanks or aircraft, for example - should they have been considered off limits by the Allies solely on the basis that they're not in uniform?
--They should be considered off limits because they are unarmed and not a direct threat. They are receiving directions, you cut it at the head. Did you notice that after Hitler's death and the capturing of most of the territory and the heads, that the war was won by this?

How about the members of government that run the war machine? They're not uniformed troops, but they make the decisions and issue the orders.
--I think (and I might be wrong) the heads in the Nazi Government were military officials. If they are giving orders then yes they are not civilians but are directly involved in the war and a threat.

What if one side spares civilians, but the other doesn't? Does your ethical constraint still apply?
-- The duty is to spare civilians, not to look at what the other side is doing.

Comrade_: On a side note, the wars that we had WW1 and especially WW2 are a bit different from our times, to me, not based on the weaponry so much but on the reasons for going to war. With WW2 we invaded because Hitler was a direct threat and what he did/planned was going to affect everyone. His arm force was distinct, you knew who you were fighting and the result you wanted. In modern times you have the West in the ME..where some don't know the reason, or the who, more so the expected results.

Serabi: Dawn... The ANC goverment was elected as SA 'First True Democracy'. Millions of illiterate blacks voted them in because they were promised - Fridges, cars, washing machines, etc. Now they are moaning and groaning, with the small minority whites about SA plummeting into an abyss.

Voting comes, they will still vote for the ANC because of threats on their life. Google Zimbabwe, we are on our way. Hospitals have no food, they - the government HAS JUST SOLD OUR HIGHWAYS TO A PRIVATE COMPANY!!!!!

lavendar_star: the government HAS JUST SOLD OUR HIGHWAYS TO A PRIVATE COMPANY!!!!! The British government are planning to do the same thing.

Dawn: What's that got to do with Germany, Serabi? And yes, they were fooled, they have the right to complain.... they were promised something, they will vote for it because they can gain something from it (we all vote like that). Is it their responsibility to look up what the party actually stands for? yes! But in desperate times you just want a roof over your head, food and maybe a washing machine... And illiterate blacks? Lol...

Serabi: "Are the citizens of a particular nationality ethically "responsible" for the acts of their government?

What if a citizen disagrees with the acts of their government? Should they be held ethically "responsible" regardless?"

I didn't know we were only talking about Germany. The illiterate black masses are really voting out of fear. When I say these words, I don't lie!!!! I would love for everybody to be able to read or write! It doesn't happen here, or in Zimbabwe or Malawi!!! When the ANC government took over, they changed to an OBE schooling system - it has failed world-wide but it would work here. It hasn't. When the "Madiba-scholars" matriculated, we had some high schools with ZERO pass rate. The Matriculation exam is National but individual schools write their own exams. With the new OBE system, you are not allowed to fail a child in school.

We have rural schools where children are taught by other kids because teachers are drunk. We have kids (black) who have never seen the inside of a classroom. Because of gross overpopulation there are not enough schools.

IF I HAD LIVED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND SOMEONE WROTE THIS, I WOULD NEVER HAVE BELIEVED THEM!!

Back to buying votes and the responsibility of the citizen - As a registered voter, I vote for the opposition party, not the ANC. The opposition party is gaining votes on a daily basis, thank goodness, but more in the urban areas. Rural - lives are threatened if they don't vote for the ANC.

There are intelligent people on WireClub - have you no concept of what is happening in Zimbabwe? An 88 year old dictator living in a palace, snubbing the UK, USA, etc openly, while whole villages are dead because of starvation and AIDS. (Openly being beaten on TV to vote for the "right" party.)

South Africa is going the same way. 11 EU countries have just signed a document against the "Farm Massacres" going on. I have no reason to lie - I only want to live in a country where people act like people and not hungry, savage hyaenas!!! I use those words very specifically. If I had nowhere to sleep, cold and wet with a hungry, aching tummy, I would probably DO THE SAME! Look at hyenas/lions on a kill, they will maul each other to get meat into their stomachs. WE SEE KIDDIES/BABIES DYING IN FRONT OF OUR EYES BECAUSE OF STARVATION.

FUCK WORLD - WAKE UP!!!!

Dawn: Ok... Have you any idea of what's happening in other countries, beside Zimbawe?

Yan26: @SITS - I find your eg faulty in that you are trying to establish a black and white scenario. The real scenario is anything but that.

For eg you said "Civilian roads and bridges used by military for movement of troops. Should those be off limits?"
You could say In a war it is the responsiblity of each governemnt to protect its own civilians. Hence it is ok to bomb the civilians .
I could counter argue that the needlessly killing civilians in strikes on roads and bridges is un ethical as they are not fighting you and may even be opposed to the war.
You could counterargue that the leader of a country is first responsible for his own citizens and then others. Hence if allowing the roads to function leads to more deaths amongst his soldiers it is his responsibility to have it destroyed civilians be damned.
And so on...

The point of my long winded argument is that your eg is not a black and white scenario. It is a grey scenario. No matter which decision you take you will have to compromise somewhere. Is it acceptable to completely massacre the opposition for the sake of victory ? Or to bear heavy losses for the sake of humanity. The answer would lie somewhere in between.At the end of the day it is the leader of the nation who has to decide at what levels of humanity is acceptable to his nation. And the people of both natons are responsible for the actions of their leaders.

StuckInTheSixties:

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that aren't mine.

"You could say In a war it is the responsiblity of each governemnt to protect its own civilians. Hence it is ok to bomb the civilians."

I didn't say that. I didn't imply that.

Same thing with this comment:

"You could counterargue that the leader of a country is first responsible for his own citizens and then others."

That's OBVIOUS. If a leader leads his country into war, that leader has ethical responsibility for doing that. (shrugs) So what?

I think you're sort of taking my original question, and turning it backwards. I'm not asking if it's ethical for a leader to lead his country into a war.

I'm asking if the CITIZENS of a country are ethically responsible for the conduct of their leaders.

Actually, I'm not taking a position on this issue. I'm personally conflicted by it. That was why I posted the question, to see what others had to say about it.

My replies to Lipton, which is what you're misunderstanding, were not meant to define any moral or ethical position I have. Those replies were simply pointing out various things in Lipton's answers that either didn't make sense when applying them to the real world, or where I was seeking amplification from him.

I'm baffled that your opening sentence characterizes me of "trying to establish a black and white scenario" especially since you then point out that it's "grey."

Black and white is exactly what you, JackEthan, and Lipton are characterizing with the idea of a stark division between the civilians and the military of a warring nation. On the other hand, my whole point is that there is often a very ill-defined division, as in my example of civilians working in factories making weaponry for the troops. It's not black and white at all, but varying shades of grey.

I would ask why there is an ethical division between those making the weapons, and those using them.

If a soldier in uniform was shooting his rifle, and a civilian in street clothes was bringing him ammunition, does that mean the civilian isn't involved ethically?

Yan26: I made a mistake by referring to you at the start of my post.So when I said "You could say In a war it is the responsiblity of each governemnt to protect its own civilians. Hence it is ok to bomb the civilians " I didnt actually mean you. I meant it could be argued by someone
I can see how referring to you at the start of the post made you think I was aiming it specfically at you. That was not my intention. I hope I have cleared that confusion.

What I tried to do in my post was to take an eg and provide strong arguments both for and against it. Thereby trying to show that there is no easy answer to the question you asked Lipton .
With regards to your question of whether people are responsible for the actions of their leaders. My answer would remain yes.

Each individual has the right to disagree with the decision of a leader but the entire nation/society as a whole has to accept responsibility for the actions of their leader .

With respect to an individual citizen - It does seem unfair to hold him responsible for an action he opposes but that is a part of living in a society/nation.

Comrade_: It might be more black and white, a soldier would be the one who is a direct threat, a civilian is not. It's not the clothes that defines the civilians but their threat level (in my opinion).
Why would you say that someone who supplies the soldier with ammunition is a civilian btw? I'm doubting a passer-by would have ammunition to give a soldier, it would mean that the 'civilian' is part of the conflict and part of that military.
If someone put it in greys and say that those who supply/ manufacture the weapons are not civilians then you leave it open for those to be killed, unarmed. What about outside countries that supply ammunitions? What about targeting by professions?
It leaves professions as 'nuclear scientist' etc to also be killed. No? In my mind there needs to be a distinction or there'd be a mess.

StuckInTheSixties:

JackEthan says:
"It's not the clothes that defines the civilians but their threat level"

That would suggest that the taxpayers of any nation that collects taxes which are then used for military purposes are part of the "threat level," wouldn't it?

JackEthan says:
"Why would you say that someone who supplies the soldier with ammunition is a civilian btw?"

That's my point. There's a semantic or technical difference between soldier and civilian - loosely speaking, the uniform defines that difference. War requires national effort that goes all the way from the man pulling the trigger of his rifle to the farmer raising the food that feeds the man running the printing press that prints the tickets used by the bus company that takes the guy to work who flips hamburgers eaten at lunchtine by the guy who works in the factory that makes the springs used in the engines manufactured by the guy who works in the truck factory whose trucks are used to move brass which is taken from foundaries where the foundary workers work to the factory where other guys transform the raw brass into sheets where another guy in another truck takes it to the railroad yard where other guys load it onto a flatcar, and move it to another factory where the sheet brass is shaped into cartridges by other guys, which are then sent to yet another factory where the "gunpowder" and projectiles are loaded into the cartridge by other guys, and the cartridges are put into cardboard boxes that were made by other guys, and loaded into trucks driven by other guys ... etc. etc. etc.

... and eventually, the guy with the rifle shoots at another guy with a rifle.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were involved in that rifle shot. They are all aware of how their actions take a part in what ultimately happens. Are they all "ethically" responsible?

JackEthan says:
"I'm doubting a passer-by would have ammunition to give a soldier, it would mean that the 'civilian' is part of the conflict and part of that military."

That was a hypothetical situation I described, of course, but it illustrated that civilians aid the soldiers in a million different ways, sometimes right on the battlefield. Sometimes the involvment is very direct, sometimes indirect.

JackEthan says:
"If someone put it in greys and say that those who supply/ manufacture the weapons are not civilians then you leave it open for those to be killed, unarmed. What about outside countries that supply ammunitions? What about targeting by professions? It leaves professions as 'nuclear scientist' etc to also be killed. No? In my mind there needs to be a distinction or there'd be a mess."

Precisely. A "mess" that simply can't be defined by simplistic terms such as "military" and "civilian."

It's all intertwined. So if you feel that it's only ethical to target only the guy pulling the trigger on his rifle, then you leave in place this massive network that allows the guy to be pulling the trigger. And if you target that massive network, then you wind up targeting the nation as a whole.

That concept was the basis upon which I asked my original question for this thread.

If you apply actual historical circumstances, then you get all kinds of examples where it makes a very compelling argument that it's no less ethical to target something/someone that's not specifically military.

Earlier I used the example of targeting a bridge. Bridges make a good example of the difficulty to find nice neat answers to this issue.

You blow up a bridge, it forces your enemy to move his troops in ways that give you a strategic advantage that can result in saving the lives of many of your own troops and the eventual defeat of your enemy. Are you going to spare this bridge at the cost of thousands of casualties because it's "unethical" to target this "civilian" bridge?

In the days leading up to the D-Day invasion of Normandy, Allies targeted bridges, railroads, crossroads, etc. This was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to prevent Germans from being able to move up massive armies to repel the invasion before the Allies could gain a foothold.

It was a very simple equation: Either go after these non-military targets, or have no D-Day invasion.

Comrade_:
JackEthan says:
"It's not the clothes that defines the civilians but their threat level"

SITS says:
That would suggest that the taxpayers of any nation that collects taxes which are then used for military purposes are part of the "threat level," wouldn't it?

-How is it suggesting this? You said "If a soldier in uniform was shooting his rifle, and a civilian in street clothes was bringing him ammunition, does that mean the civilian isn't involved ethically?" My statement is you can't look at clothes to define who is or isn't a civilian. You look at their threat level. Threat level will be in combat, who is shooting at you. You can no longer say he is a civilian when he is on the spot taking part in a military situation, I'm thinking realistically, he's part of the military to have ammunition and that authority to be there.
Will you shoot at someone who is unarmed and works in a gun factory or the person who is a direct threat and shooting at you. You pointed earlier that times have changed and no longer are wars fought on battle plains etc, but go further than that, no longer are soldiers wearing distinct uniforms (as the case in the Middle East or rebels).

Do you get that not everyone supports a war? Even in your own country you can notice this, yet from Religious man to School teacher they pay taxes which the Government allocates to war efforts. I consider them civilians and no I'd not deny that there is a contribution made to the war but 'ethically responsible', no. I'd give you an example and you can tell me if it's a wrong one, but recently the debate with contraceptives being provided by Catholic run-institutions, they refuse to provide it directly, yet they have no control or ethical burden if the person who they pay use their salary for an abortion.

In some situations as the Middle East or other unstable countries, the citizens don't have a 'say' or input into how the Government runs things, a farmer in North Korea couldn't put down his hoe and say he doesn't support war or a layman in the West can't say he's not gonna pay taxes because he doesn't support the war.

Don't get how a bridge can hold thousands of civilians, usually in times of war civilians tend to stay away from the vulnerable areas as much as possible but anyways I'm thinking beyond bridges or infrastructures, and targeting actual civilians based on the notion that they're contributing or a threat.

StuckInTheSixties:

In World War II, the choice was clear-cut for the Allies.

Go after the entire war machine, or lose the war.

Which would be the more ethical choice?

Comrade_: You have to go into detail into what you're trying to say. I'm not going to guess and misinterpret the scenario you're presenting:
-What is the 'entire war machine'?
-Where was it indicated that there was a choice to go after the 'entire war machine' or lose the war?
-Is it hindsight on your part or a real decision that was faced at the time?
-When you say "Allies" are you referring to direct commands from the Government/Military head or the action of individual soldiers?

Btw why are you drawing to WW2, I think there's modern day wars you can pull from, it'd be easier to understand situations fitted for our day.

StuckInTheSixties:

I not sure if you're just being obstinate or what, but I'll try to reword that so that hopefully you don't find it ambiguous.



During World War II, the choice was clear cut for the political and military leadership, as well as the general citizenry, of the Allies ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

The choice for the Allies was:

Completely destroy any ability of Germany to conduct any sort of meaningful military operations, and force their military and political leadership, as well as their citizens, to accept an unconditional surrender ...

... or

Fail at their collective goal of doing so, which would allow Germany to continue its pursuit of world enslavement.

Which would be the ethical choice?

(Note: I'm basing the premise of that question the historical fact that the Allies believed that anything short of an unconditional surrender would allow Germany to continue their goal of world enslavement. I'm guessing you want to question the validity of that premise. I'm not interested in discussing the validity of that premise. If that's what you want to discuss, take it up with someone else.)



"Where was it indicated that there was a choice to go after the 'entire war machine' or lose the war?"

I don't understand that question.

"Is it hindsight on your part or a real decision that was faced at the time?"

It was a real decision. (And I'm not particularly enthused that you're trying to get this discussion bogged down in historical details.)

"When you say "Allies" are you referring to direct commands from the Government/Military head or the action of individual soldiers?"

Both. And add the general citizenry in there, as well.

"Btw why are you drawing to WW2"

Because it makes for a good example of the kind of ethical premise I was interested in discussing.