fast

No -- or generally not.

There are some issues here that need to be addressed. If I'm asked, "will I ACCEPT...", then by that qualification, at the very least, there must be an a priori awareness that certain events will transpire affording me that awareness. There are such circumstances. An example would be a declaration of war or your hearing that military forces are approaching.

It's reasonable to expect that if I'm in the vicinity of a barrage of bullets, then I ought to conclude a plausibility that I may indeed become an unintended casualty. I do not want to die from the forwarding aggression of others, so it's not something to which I would be inclined to ACCEPT.

If I were in such a situation to which I played no major role (in either being apart of the advancing troops or in being apart of the resistance), then what greater-good example I mustered to hypothetically provide would further factor into my final decision. I would, for example, attempt to rescue or otherwise save not just myself but my family as well (a bigger good, as you articulated), so in this scenario, I would accept potentially becoming collateral damage while undergoing my efforts to save those before mentioned people. This, however, is not to say, I would "accept," as if to say "not mind." Juxtaposing I would be alive to be aware, then I would mind very much being unjustly killed because of my incidental location while others are battling for some supposed greater good.

Notice the bolded above where I said, "unjustly killed." That's because I do not support the notion that the war was in fact a greater good.

Either way, a soldier who signs up for military duty has the reasonable expectation that any war they are commanded to partake in to be just, and if it's not, they may become casualties of war -- not collateral damage.

fast

arkirk

You may think I am an awful pacifist, but every person that is killed in war is unjustly killed. Somebody puts it into your mind that you must "stop terrorism" they give you a gun and some bullets.

There's a sniper in that apartment house. We don't want to endanger ourselves so let us call in an AIR STRIKE and blow the whole thing. Too bad there are women and children and old men and women in there. They are "collateral damage." You didn't mean to kill them but it was too dangerous and too much trouble not to kill them. This little scenario I have heard repeated over and over by troubled returnees for this "war."

Dlx2

Of course, this isn't the sniper's fault for using a civilian building to stage a military attack, an action which violates the Geneva Conventions and knowingly puts the civilians in danger.

MattBeckwith

Excellent answer to the OP's question!

Howard Bloom in The Lucifer Principle explains how people are motivated in part by the good of the entire group, even if it means innocents must be sacrificed from time to time. Thus, Bush sends Americans to Iraq to kill a dictator, knowing that thousands of innocent civilians will die in the process (not to mention American boys and girls just doing their duty, and Iraqi boys and girls doing theirs). I'm not defending or criticizing the war in Iraq, just explaining that these things are a fact of life, and part of living as members of a society.

By getting in a car, I risk an accidental violent death every day. By being a human being, I risk contraction of cancer.

Of course, the OP probably was making a judgment against the war in Iraq. Or perhaps he was asking whether collateral damage is ever acceptable. I think in some cases collateral damage is acceptable.

There is a point of view that individual human life is the most precious thing on the planet, and that there are no higher principles. I've heard this philosophy referred to as humanism. I've heard other philosophies referred to as humanism also, so I'm not really clear on what is or is not humanism.

If someone came into this café where I'm sitting with a gun and ordered me to do something totally revolting or die, I'd probably do nothing and be killed. So I guess I'm not a humanist.

----------------
http://drbeckwith.com

ComestibleVenom

I pity those who die defending pusillanimy more than those who die in a loosing battle for a great cause.

arkirk

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Killing people indescriminantly is wrong in my book. When you attack an "enemy" that has to shoot people from apartment houses, you obviously have a monsterous advantage over them. When you kill another human being you are messing with the mainsprings of your own morality. It doesn't matter what the well heeled victors in WWII think about it (Geneva). The act of blowing the apartment house, women and babies (Iraqis whom you have already reduced in your mind to mere collateral protoplasm) remains in the American field of responsibility if it is American arms and troops that do the damage. :down:

Dlx2

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad lazarum.

arkirk

Do you come to these forums in search of amusement? You have not answered to my argument that it is WE who are responsible for the damage OUR guns and gunners do to people we simply write of. You ought to send your stuff to GWB. He would see you are loyal to a fault and maybe appoint you to something. Terrorists are not attacking America in response to earthquakes. You seem to want to side-step anything resembling responsibility.

Words like Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad lazarum, and Red Herring. These suggest you expect us all to be as uncaring as you are. They are not supported by anything. They are essentially just attempts to attack my character and my intelligence with slurs. I think it is very unfortunate you have this particular leaning. You definitely are a form of collateral damage yourself. You will not deal with MY argument, so who is the ad lazarum here?

Dlx2

You used the logical fallacy "argumentum ad lazarum" to redirect blame from those who ARE to blame (those who use civilian buildings as military posts and thus endanger civilians) with Americans (for bombing those buildings) because the former "are weak and defenseless and have no choice but to use civilians as human shields because that's the only way for them to win."

Using human shields is unethical, and if your shield dies, it is YOU that is to blame, not the person who had to kill them in order to get to you.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to make this distinction. It is also unfortunate that you equate not buying into your credo with being heartless or pro-war.

However, this is more Red Herring that you're trying to feed us, because this isn't the point of the OP. The point is, "does the way you feel about sacrificing people for the Greater Good change when you are the one being sacrificed?"

llanitedave

Would the SWAT team in the U.S. use this logic if there were a sniper shooting at them from an occupied apartment building? I think not.

The civilians are in danger from the U.S. response in this case, not the sniper himself.

BTW, can you say that American soldiers in any "just" war have never used civilian facilities as a base of operations from which to attack the enemy?