Would you kill for your country?
This is not intended for those who are enlisted in the armed forces…or law enforcement people. but feel free to answer if you want to
For the regular civilian population….If you were contacted by a government agency that you found out to be real…but limited other info… to assassinate someone in another country as your patriotic duty.
They would provide the required training to compete the assignment, they would compensate you for your time, but after you leave your country you would receive limited support…
The information you receive about your “Target” is limited to a picture and known locations… no reason why given
Would you do it?......
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
30 Answers
No, not under those circumstances.
No. “Country” and “patriotic duty” are items at the bottom of the list I would kill for. Especially not without reasons.
I would however present the assassination plans, including documents and audiorecordings I would have secretly taken, to the public.
Wow, I was actually thinking about this yesterday. Therefore it must be a great question (ha!). Anyways, I decided that I would not kill in the name of the US itself. I would kill to defend friends and family (like most anyone). But if there was some aggressive nation that started basically doing what the Germans did in WWII, I would want to assist suppressing that effort. I wouldn’t care which nation’s army I was with, but in all honesty it would probably be most effective to be part of the US military but I’m saying that without knowing a whole lot about the specifics of other militaries
So I’d fight more for any nation/people who could fall under the regime of the growing threat, not just the US specifically.
extraordinarily unlikely.
Just noticed I didn’t read the details and didn’t answer the actual question at all. No, I wouldn’t kill someone the corrupt US gov’t advised me needed to be killed. I’d need to be convinced it was necessary, and would still have doubts. And given that I’m not some super-espionage agent, even if I did take the mission, I’d probably get thrown in a local jail for something dumb.
No, I would need more information than that. Don’t want to end up like this guy.
How much?$?$?$?
I am not what you would call a patriot, In fact I’m anti.government. You would have to pay me, and pay me at least 10 million, and if when I get there, they offer me 15 million to not kill and to betray my contractor, I’m going to take the 15 mill.
No.
Anyway, you can’t know for sure that even the intel that the government has is true, or that they even know for sure is 100% true that some person needs to be killed. I’m not about to hurt anyone who isn’t imminently trying to take me out first.
@coffeenut Just consider this: why would a section of govermental intelligence be so interested in a random civillian as to engage him in an assassination plan? And especially, Why would they have you undergo a specific training? (which actually happens). Ok… “it’s obvious”, one might say. but have you considered what is done to the psyche of recruits?
Answer is, to be anonymous and let the dirty work be done by the hands of a little no one.
To be obliterated after the quest. That is, if you remain alive.. or worse if you remain mentally sane.
I believe your question has a double answer: 1 – No. No one has the right to deprive another individual of their life, thus their opportunities to evolve as an individual.
2 – No. because “Countries” (especially if they call themselves democracies) do not have the right to oblige any individual to enact something that i in conflict with their intellect.
Patriotism is an irrational and unnatural illusion of one of the many facets of self confidence. Used to deceive populations into believing they are a part of something that actually does not exist. A division that is counter-productive to the development of mankind as a whole.
That is my opinion.
a quote: “What is patriotism but the love of the food one ate as a child?” (Lin yutang)
@Anatelostaxus That’s what I’ve been waiting for…Thanks….GA
The Super Hero in my book will be faced with this situation….and the government pushing it because of his “patriotic Duty” And because of his upbringing and his (early superman) beliefs…...one of the many reasons he shifts….
Thanks to everyone else too…
Sounds like the alliance of the Cosa Nostra.
@Anatelostaxus I disagree with both parts of your double answer. The first part is too absolute. For one thing, rights are artificial things created by governments. All we have naturally is freedom. But even if there were such nonsense upon stilts as natural rights, surely I would have the right to kill someone who was about to kill me. So again, this part of the answer is too absolute.
The second part, meanwhile, is simply false. I find there to be no rational defense of a 35 mph speed limit on one of the virtually empty country roads near where I live. Does the state not have the right to set the limit at 35 because of this? And does it matter whether or not my intellect is particularly reliable?
Yes, the people I love most are in my country. I’d sacrifice anyone else other than them. Sounds selfish, I know but I doubt you’d sacrifice your family for someone you don’t know and is probably shooting at you…
The question as posed is too unreal. Even a secret agent knows why they’re doing what they’re doing. Without a reason, you’re simply a paid assassin. Nothing patriotic about that.
What & be James Bond for a spell? Where do I sign up? I must insist on not seeing any blood though when doing the deed itself. I come over all unneccessary see at the merest hint of the red stuff. Maybe i’ll push my intended target off a cliff then immediately look away, or poison the sucker.
@SavoirFaire Well you’ve presented a bit of a paradox, mate:
If you are presented with a menace that might jeopardise your survival you will have the necessity to counteract.
So let’s use this word: necessity, rather than right.
True, rights ARE artificial, obviously. what else could they be decreed by if not man?
You say our only right a priori is freedom. Possible.
Personally I believe so too, I think there is no other alternative.. but then again..
how could you determine that and confirm it?
Anyway, you did nothing but confirm my main point whilst debating some other details in my thesis.
If one should look carefully enough, yours is not an antithesis to what I expressed.
It does not confront (in the second answer) what stands at the basis of my statement.
Again we encounter the dilemma of “rights”, both in what you and I said.
Of course if there was such a thing as a natural right, then you would be allowed to defend your life from a potential threat of it coming to an end.
It is an absolute statement?...even relativity can be considered absolute.
And again I preach relativity.. you ought not say that something is false only because it is not compatible with your personal point of view.
Your example introduces a completely different case .
But still it connects with having the necessity do set a specific limit, even for no apparent reason.and to answer your final question, well… I don’t think you got the intended grasp on the statement about intellect.
No way, dude. The closest I would come to kill someone for my country is to defend it on its own land, but I ain’t goin out to Buttfuck Egypt to raise shit.
Probably not. Great question, though.
To protect my homeland….......yes.
To go to another country…..... no.
Never, under any circumstance.
There would have to be a Bond girl involved to get me to do it.
@Anatelostaxus It is not necessary to counteract that which might jeopardize my survival. A severely strict pacifist would not do so, for instance, even if he had the legal right. So using “necessity” instead of “right” doesn’t particularly help.
As for only debating details, well yes. That’s all I was trying to do. But details are important, especially when they constitute what you yourself referred to as the answer to the original question.
Now, you seem to be confused by my use of the word “absolute.” In normative contexts like this, it means “admitting of no exception.” A statement like “no one has the right to deprive another individual of their life, thus their opportunities to evolve as an individual” is structured so as to admit no exception. But if there are exceptions, as we agree there are, then the statement is false.
As for my speed limit example, it is an specific case of the general principle you set forth in the second part of your answer. But since you put forth a general principle, no specific case should serve as a counterexample. If you do not like the case, then you will have to change, clarify, or somehow adjust the principle that lead to it. This was the purpose of my questions, which you failed to answer: I was looking for clarification. More details are needed before the second part of your answer can be fully assessed.
So here is the problem again. The second part of your answer says that countries—and democracies in particular—do not have the right to oblige people to act contrary to their intellects. The case I give is an instance in which it seems that countries have every right (insofar as we understand rights to be artificial creations) to create a law (which is something that obliges us) even if it is contrary to my intellect (for example, when I can find no rational defense for it and even think reason demonstrates that a higher speed limit would be better).
If you do not think my scenario contradicts your assertion about the rights of countries, then clarify where the two come apart. If the scenario does contradict your assertion, then show what is wrong with the scenario or abandon the assertion.
Bush starts two wars with the reasoning it’s better to fight them “over there” than here at home. I would rather fight them here on home turf. Let em in. Not even entertaining the thought of traveling far away to kick someone’s ass. Seems like a cool movie plot but not very probable.
We Europeans went over to the Americas, Africa and Asia so we could fight them over there, and you know what?...we were damn good at it. Those damn savages were building the mother of all canoes, arming it to the teeth with Indian braves and just about to paddle the Atlantic. But we got there first.
Yes, as a last resort. For example if some movement invaded Germany trying to set up a totalitarian state. But something like this is very unlikely in the near future.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
