Nationality And Ethical Responsibility (Page 2)

Comrade_
Comrade_: They weren't rhetorical questions to prove any opposing point, they were questions for you to elaborate on what you are putting forward.

I think you wanted to look at the strategic bombing aspect of WW2 (maybe out of WW2 also). Saying that from the beginning would make more sense than comparing it to a 'civilian' giving ammunition to a soldier on the street...still don't know why you were dancing around the label.

Edit: Strategic Bombing is the only one that can fit, because ground soldiers will target soldiers and not civilians.
I don't see this as stopping at WW2. There's more to it but I see that you have your mind set on what you want to discuss and what I have in mind would go off topic.
(Edited by Comrade_)
11 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties:

World War II is only a convenient example because it was such total war, thus involved civilians in such a total way. But rather than focusing only on whether it was ethical for cities to be targeted for strategic bombing, I was also thinking of other things.

On one hand, you could say that the German populace collectively "got the government that they allowed, or wanted" and thus, they "deserved" to have their country utterly destroyed when the government they allowed led them into a disastrous total war. (Same with the Japanese.)

Or you could say that the German citizens were also victims of a government that got out of control.

Let's make a more topical example.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq invades Kuwait and attempts to make it Iraq's "19th Province." It was basically a case of armed robbery. Instead of a wallet taken at gunpoint, it was a country.

Were Iraqi citizens, as a whole, "responsible" for Saddam's theft? After all, they "allowed" themselves to be governed by Saddam and the Bathists.

Or were they victims of Saddam, as well?

My intent with this thread was to sort of play both sides of that question.

It may have appeared that I was taking only one side as I questioned the simplistic, and unrealistic, idea that in World War II, there was any possibility of fighting the Axis war machines in such a way as to only target the soldiers in uniform. The nature of that war (and modern warfare, in general) simply precluded such a thing.

Let's put it this way:

An American citizen carries an anti-war sign at a demonstration, actively campaigns for "peace" candidates in elections, yet pays his income taxes, about a third of which fund that which he is demonstrating against.

Another American citizen is an active "hawk" politically, and campaigns for "pro-military" candidates, and also pays his income taxes.

They have two things in common:

They both have the same nationality.
They both pay their income taxes.

Are both equally - collectively ... "ethically responsible" for the military activities of their country?

(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
11 years ago Report
0
Xx_KrAsH_xX
Xx_KrAsH_xX: No they are not.

Decisions made by governments are the responsibility of the government alone,no one in the voting public votes on the premise that the candidate they are voting for is going to behave unethically.
11 years ago Report
0