GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Brynn]Everybody is so quick to give this answer... Have you really thought about it?

I don't think principles are the MOST important thing in life. (Besides, they can prove wrong one day...) Say, the communist come back (god forbid) and try to "persuade" me to join them and be their spy (just like they did to half of the nation a couple of decades ago). Well, if it was just me, I would definitely fight - but what if they threaten with hurting my family? I'm not sure I would keep to my holy principles if the other choice is endanger my loved ones...

That's a more diplomatic answer, I second that.[/QUOTE]

Brynn yup. Thought it through many times. Tried to join the Pakistani military. Its a very simple decision for me as it is based on religious ideology. In your scenerio. I would fight the communist and protect my family. Both are principles of morality and life. You can not give one up for the other. That is not standing up for your principles.

A diplomatic answer is great when you don't know what you want or don't believe yourself to have the moral fiber to stand up for your principles. I have no such problem.

Edit: To add i find it interesting that people take the most mundane principles and use those to state that not all principles are worth dying for. That is all true. 90% of all principles are not worth dying for. But its the other 10% that is being discussed here. An issue of opening doors or what not is not an issue considered worthy dying for. However protecting family or nation those are concepts that are normally linked to the concept of honor morality and dying for.

That 10% is what most people talk about is worth dying for. Personally i would offer my efforts in a call to jihad that was islamically prescribed. Religion is something worth dying for. My family is worth dying for and worth killing for. These are two principles i adhere by always.

Maybe it would be easier to list principles that people feel are worth dying for? Because it is obvious not all are.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
A diplomatic answer is great when you don't know what you want or don't believe yourself to have the moral fiber to stand up for your principles. I have no such problem.

Edit: To add i find it interesting that people take the most mundane principles and use those to state that not all principles are worth dying for. That is all true. 90% of all principles are not worth dying for. But its the other 10% that is being discussed here. An issue of opening doors or what not is not an issue considered worthy dying for. However protecting family or nation those are concepts that are normally linked to the concept of honor morality and dying for.

That 10% is what most people talk about is worth dying for. Personally i would offer my efforts in a call to jihad that was islamically prescribed. Religion is something worth dying for. My family is worth dying for and worth killing for. These are two principles i adhere by always.

Maybe it would be easier to list principles that people feel are worth dying for? Because it is obvious not all are.[/QUOTE]


But what if you died in vain? What if, by your death, your family wasn't safer, your country would still be overrun.... if you death by principle achived nothing and altered nothing, other then ending up by you death and causing your family extra grief.
Would that be dying for once principle or simply dying due to a (misplaced) sense of subjective honor?
And similar exampels could be set up by dying for ones "faith" and/or jihads or what not.

The world is not black and white, and until faced with the ultimate choice, I doubt anybody can sit and honestly say how they'll react, other then playing "mindgames" with each other, and perhaps boasting of ones moral fiber in a given hypotethical situation. I think many here that claim the willingness to die and fight and what not are kidding themselves, it is always easier to think about walking a mile, then actually taking the first step.

Xandax wrote:But what if you died in vain? What if, by your death, your family wasn't safer, your country would still be overrun.... if you death by principle achived nothing and altered nothing, other then ending up by you death and causing your family extra grief.
Would that be dying for once principle or simply dying due to a (misplaced) sense of subjective honor?
And similar exampels could be set up by dying for ones "faith" and/or jihads or what not.

See the difference here is that the outcome is important. In the basic definition of principle it is something you believe in and are willing to die for. It is not important whether you die or what the outcome is in the short term. The importance is stated on the fact that you tried. Thus the format of the question. Would YOU die for YOUR principles? The question is not the outcome or what happens. The question is whether you are willing to take action that would lead to your death.

Secondly if it is subjective it can't be misplaced as it is your own personal choice and feelings. If it changes nothing so be it. But that could have verily been the attitude of people in WW1. WW2. That is what people saw in Rwanda. Alot of people talk the talk. We should stop genocide. Few walk the walk. Ie went in there to help. They did it on their set of principles when they knew they could die. Those who do, i honor.

The world is not black and white, and until faced with the ultimate choice, I doubt anybody can sit and honestly say how they'll react, other then playing "mindgames" with each other, and perhaps boasting of ones moral fiber in a given hypotethical situation.

That of course is based on the assumption that someone has not gone through the experience where one would have to make such choices. Life is pretty black and white really. That is why we have laws. Murder is wrong. Genocide is wrong. That is clear black and white. Each situation is grey however. That doubt is of course based on an assumption of personal experiences.

I think many here that claim the willingness to die and fight and what not are kidding themselves, it is always easier to think about walking a mile, then actually taking the first step.

Again that is a personal assumption of yours based on your own preconcieved ideas and ideology and not considering the background others come from and what their views are.

I'd die for my principles. I suppose that's what sets principles apart from just opinions or beliefs, is that they are so important.


-----
Would I die if my country got invaded by the Swedes and they wanted to turn us all into slave? Likely not, but I'd fight to avoid it and then death would be a possible outcome. I wouldn't die for it, but I would fight for it.
-----
I don't quite understand how that works. You'd fight for it but you wouldn't die for it? Do you mean as soon as you're about to die you'll give up and hope that stops you from dying? Fighting in defence of a country is risking death. Or is it more like a threshold - as soon as there is greater than a 75% chance of death I give up?

Re: CE, freedom

I've never heard freedom in terms of negative and positive freedom. The American freedom I was thinking of is similar to what frogus mentioned, not what you described. If you want to be more specific I am interested. I don't know enough about Scandanavian countries to comment on them. For me, American freedom involves individualism, human rights, a progressive attitude, and many other things. In America, there is (in theory) unlimited potential for every citizen. That is why the US has been "the land of opportunity", and is the reason that the US constitution has been used as a source document for many other constitutions internationally.

It isn't popular (or even easy) to defend the US since GW Bush was elected. However, the US is the nation that rebuilt Europe after WWI and WWII, the nation that played a key role in founding the UN, has fought for freedom at tremendous national expense for the past 50 years, and many other successes in international politics.

It is very easy to criticise the US in today's climate, and much of the criticism is valid. However, most of what I've heard (especially during the time directly following 9/11 when I was living in Spain) was ignorant and hurtful. If you criticize, please do so in an intelligent manner- I like to debate, but I don't like to have me and/or my country attacked because it is popular.

Edit- Re: CM

I am stunned to hear that you support jihad. I would like you to explain a little more please. Also, don't you think there is a conflict between working at the UN and believing in jihad?

Cuchulain82 wrote:I've never heard freedom in terms of negative and positive freedom.

I'll try to find more references later if you wish, but I learned the expressions "negative and positive freedom" from a philiosopher and I do believe the terms originates from philosophy. Here's a link to Stanford Uni:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liber ... -negative/
I only skimmed through it since I'm at work, but I seems to describe the terms in the same way as I have learned to define them.

It is very easy to criticise the US in today's climate, and much of the criticism is valid. However, most of what I've heard (especially during the time directly following 9/11 when I was living in Spain) was ignorant and hurtful. If you criticize, please do so in an intelligent manner- I like to debate, but I don't like to have me and/or my country attacked because it is popular.

If you do a search on my name and "US foreign policy" or "Vietnam", "Cambodia", "South America", "Nicaragua", "Chile", "carpet bombing", "Hiroshima", "Somalia" (or maybe "Mogadishu", "Israel" and "Palestine" I think you will rest assured that none of critisism of the US rests on post 9/11 events only, and that I am not critical of the US because it is popular. For non foreign policy events you can find threads if you search on my name, the US and "educational system" or "health care system" I think. I am honestly quite fed up with debating US policies, I just mention this is order to try to convice you that I am not attacking the US or any other country based on anything else than their acts and the effects of their acts.

The W Bush administration has created a large gorge between Europe and the US, but my opinions about the pre-W Bush and pre 9/11 events has not changed because of it.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I'll try to find more references later if you wish <snip>
I only skimmed through it since I'm at work, but I seems to describe the terms in the same way as I have learned to define them.[/QUOTE]
I'm at work as well, so I can't read through them now. I will try to do so later- thanks for the reference.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]If you do a search on my name and "US foreign policy" <snip> I am not critical of the US because it is popular.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I wanted to avoid anti-US rhetoric and Bush-bashing, not necessarily from you CE- your responses are thorough and articulate.

The US has a decidedly mixed record in international politics, but I think that much more good has been done by the US than my any other super power historically.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]For non foreign policy events you can find threads if you search on my name, the US and "educational system" or "health care system" <snip> pre 9/11 events has not changed because of it.[/QUOTE]
I happen to work in the US educational system, so if you want to talk, we can do so. If you don't want to debate US policies that is fine as well. But my point is that if you hold the US accountable to Iran Contra and Chile, you also have to give credit for D-Day, the Marshall Plan, and Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations. While the US is very active internationally, some other countries are not- we have the resources to be a world leader, and have tried to be one. As an aside, I think that the US and Israel/Palestine is another thread entirely.

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'd die for my beliefs. I've come close once already for it. In the case of joining a military body I was against, I'd join in the effort to cause as much harm to the group as possible. Refusing outright with no weapons is certain death with no worth. Joining, training and taking out half a squad at the first opportunity they deploy you to do acts your against, now that is a death worth your life IMO.

As far as being coerced into joining, if you aren't doing so to further your own beliefs, I'd say your corrupt and a coward.

To make it more interesting however, bringing family into it can pose a large number of problems. If you have children, young children, they depend on you to live. You are required to take care of them. Getting shot down for defiance doesn't quite cut it there. Where do you draw the line of going along with something to protect your children and to stand up for what you believe in because all of your deaths are preferrable to joining up with a group that does heinous acts?[/QUOTE]

I disagree with you utterly and completely. Martyrdom isn't something that I would try to achieve, dying "gloriously" as a "hero" in battle. Further, by murdering (or killing, if you want to call it that) half a squad before you die, you achieve nothing. Nothing but the death of those who yet could have lived. By surrendering, I would firstly have a large change of survival, secondly and most important; only my life would be lost. I don't believe that my life is worth more than any others life.

Further more, what do you think that you fight for, when you are at the battlefield? Your pride? Your country? Your family? Yes, that's what the war generals would want us to believe, rather than warfare being a powergame at the whim of the conquerors. In my book, dying in a battlefield, is the most horrible and meaningless waste of life possible.