Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

bps.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#71

Post by closewith »

mmooss wrote: post #69
closewith wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not the same revulsion. In the world of men who have not lived their entire lives isolated from danger and conflict in a rules-based society, the Hollywood version of war isn't a consideration. It's no different to Marvel or Harry Potter movies. It's an open secret many people who experience raw conflict in which actions and not regulations decide outcomes like it. It's the reason why they often go bac…

You're making up a bunch of stuff, from the premise about some specific psychologies, to things about the GP, to assumptions about 'Hollywood' and what is the "reality of the world" (it's well-worn sophistry to depict the other person's version as fantasy and your own as reality), to your conclusions. There's no basis for it. It looks to me, without basis, like the current attempt to spread the fetishization of voile…

The GP swung that combat clip like a moral sledgehammer, assuming its rawness would jolt everyone alike. Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock, so the argument’s force evaporates. You don’t get to pick reality — you only choose whether to look away.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#72

Post by mmooss »

jwilber wrote: post #70
maoberlehner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A universal aspect of every human culture is a taboo against killing. Exactly! It's taboo. It's morally wrong. It's unethical. But does it make it unnatural? It's taboo to talk about sex and what you do on the toilet, two of the most natural and human things there are.

You’re conflating social taboos with societal taboos.

Isn't each discussed taboo both societal and social (even if murder is much more serious)?

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#73

Post by mmooss »

closewith wrote: post #71
mmooss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making up a bunch of stuff, from the premise about some specific psychologies, to things about the GP, to assumptions about 'Hollywood' and what is the "reality of the world" (it's well-worn sophistry to depict the other person's version as fantasy and your own as reality), to your conclusions. There's no basis for it. It looks to me, without basis, like the current attempt to spread the fetishization of voile…

The GP swung that combat clip like a moral sledgehammer, assuming its rawness would jolt everyone alike. Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock, so the argument’s force evaporates. You don’t get to pick reality — you only choose whether to look away.

> Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock

What is that based on?

> You don’t get to pick reality

But there is the major question of, 'what is reality'. Again you try the sophistry of assuming your claim is reality and others are fantasy. That's a fantasy in your head.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#74

Post by nirui »

jmward01 wrote: post #4

Time plays a factor that may not be well controlled for here. As you get older the actions you have taken and the events you have participated in can impact you in new ways.

I don't think it's the time. Morality only exists in people who has it. Some already do, some are growing, some never will.

Funny thing is, the individuals who never had morality maybe more mentally healthy than the others, since the consequences of their action never entered their brain. Gankers are happier than the ganked, I guess.

Maybe that's why the armies around the world loves to hire dumb people into their ranks, never think, never thought, and thus ruthless and don't cost much.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#75

Post by closewith »

mmooss wrote: post #73
closewith wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP swung that combat clip like a moral sledgehammer, assuming its rawness would jolt everyone alike. Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock, so the argument’s force evaporates. You don’t get to pick reality — you only choose whether to look away.

> Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock What is that based on? > You don’t get to pick reality But there is the major question of, 'what is reality'. Again you try the sophistry of assuming your claim is reality and others are fantasy. That's a fantasy in your head.

> What is that based on?

Personal experience, but desensitisation and psychological callousing are completely uncontroversial.

> But there is the major question of, 'what is reality'. Again you try the sophistry of assuming your claim is reality and others are fantasy. That's a fantasy in your head.

I guess you don't see the irony in your comment.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#76

Post by bjornsing »

wqaatwt wrote: post #37
bjornsing wrote: post #27

The conclusion sounds reasonable and may well be correct. But I’d still be a bit worried about selection effects. The kind of person who signs up for a tour of duty to Afghanistan is probably a bit different than someone who signs up for a UN peacekeeping mission. So an alternative conclusion / title could be: “Moral injury more common among those with high moral standards”.

There is a whole Wikipedia article about UN peacekeepers committing atrocities. Not sure if claiming that on average they have “higher moral” standards than people who sign up for the Norwegian Army is fair (and they at least occasionally face repercussions for their actions unlike the “peacekeepers”).. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeep...

I don’t think people who signed up for the Norwegian army were randomly sent to Afghanistan. It was most likely a voluntary assignment. Thus the strong selection effect.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#77

Post by mmooss »

closewith wrote: post #75
mmooss wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those who’ve lived such scenes in person rarely feel that shock What is that based on? > You don’t get to pick reality But there is the major question of, 'what is reality'. Again you try the sophistry of assuming your claim is reality and others are fantasy. That's a fantasy in your head.

> What is that based on? Personal experience, but desensitisation and psychological callousing are completely uncontroversial. > But there is the major question of, 'what is reality'. Again you try the sophistry of assuming your claim is reality and others are fantasy. That's a fantasy in your head. I guess you don't see the irony in your comment.

> Personal experience

That is certainly not a basis for drawing conclusions about humanity. Also (maybe think to yourself - not really appropriate for HN, and much too personal to ask for a response): have you actually experienced killing someone or nearly being killed, or are you speculating on your response based on your response to online videos?

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#78

Post by wqaatwt »

bjornsing wrote: post #76
wqaatwt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a whole Wikipedia article about UN peacekeepers committing atrocities. Not sure if claiming that on average they have “higher moral” standards than people who sign up for the Norwegian Army is fair (and they at least occasionally face repercussions for their actions unlike the “peacekeepers”).. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeep...

I don’t think people who signed up for the Norwegian army were randomly sent to Afghanistan. It was most likely a voluntary assignment. Thus the strong selection effect.

Overwhelming majority of soldiers (at least non US/UK) deployed to Afghanistan had very few chances to engage in combat. You’d have to be in special forces to get a chance to shot people on a regular basis, and yeah that’s likely a very small and self-selected subset.

I just don’t see the point of equating this with the lack of “higher moral standards” (compared to UN peace keepers at least) I don’t think that many Norwegian (or most other Western/NATO soldiers) were implicated in that many incidents related to rape or looting.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#79

Post by esseph »

mmooss wrote: post #50
systemswizard wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a natural act for pretty much all animals on this planet

Perhaps you mean only for predators?

A horse or squirrel will kill and eat a bird if hungry and given a chance.

Sounds pretty violent to me.

Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury

#80

Post by mmooss »

esseph wrote: post #79
mmooss wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you mean only for predators?

A horse or squirrel will kill and eat a bird if hungry and given a chance. Sounds pretty violent to me.

Why do you mention violence?

I've never seen or heard of what you describe. Horses are herbivores; can they digest meat? Can they chew it? Squirrels reputedly eat nuts.

Post reply on HN