Poll: Would You Shoot Enemies Helping Their Wounded?
- Thread starter razelas
- Start date
It all depends on the moral implications of the game. If the game went really deep with the consequences of killing the wounded (such as getting points deducted for war crimes or having a more brutal enemy in the future that will try and do the same) then maybe I might hesitate, but if its only a multiplayer player/maybe single player game and there is no consequence, then it's a matter of kill or be killed. In most cases if i don't kill the enemy, then that enemy is going to possibly recover and kill me.
Additionally I tried to use as much non-sexist terms as possible since I think its unfair for games to have a limit to their gender customisability, especially the games depicting Modern Warfare since women are also soldiers and have a equal role of fighting and risk of dying as the men.
Additionally I tried to use as much non-sexist terms as possible since I think its unfair for games to have a limit to their gender customisability, especially the games depicting Modern Warfare since women are also soldiers and have a equal role of fighting and risk of dying as the men.
It all depends on the moral implications of the game. If the game went really deep with the consequences of killing the wounded (such as getting points deducted for war crimes or having a more brutal enemy in the future that will try and do the same) then maybe I might hesitate, but if its only a multiplayer player/maybe single player game and there is no consequence, then it's a matter of kill or be killed. In most cases if i don't kill the enemy, then that enemy is going to possibly recover and kill me.
Additionally I tried to use as much non-sexist terms as possible since I think its unfair for games to have a limit to their gender customisability, especially the games depicting Modern Warfare since women are also soldiers and have a equal role of fighting and risk of dying as the men.
Additionally I tried to use as much non-sexist terms as possible since I think its unfair for games to have a limit to their gender customisability, especially the games depicting Modern Warfare since women are also soldiers and have a equal role of fighting and risk of dying as the men.
Those talking about the Geneva Convention:
Give it a rest. There are only about 4 countries left on the planet that actually abide by the Geneva Convention anymore, and the US is NOT one of them. I know this probably shatters your pre-conceived notion that America is "better than that", but trust me, we're not.
Are we still the greatest country in the world? Hell yeah. But that's like being the valedictorian at summer school. - Dennis Miller
Give it a rest. There are only about 4 countries left on the planet that actually abide by the Geneva Convention anymore, and the US is NOT one of them. I know this probably shatters your pre-conceived notion that America is "better than that", but trust me, we're not.
Are we still the greatest country in the world? Hell yeah. But that's like being the valedictorian at summer school. - Dennis Miller
If it was a medic then no. I'd rather not be convicted of any war crimes. If it was a normal soldier, than no. It's gonna take several men to haul back the one wounded one, meaning I have less to deal with at that moment. Now, if they were shooting back at me, that would be different, and I'd have no choice but to return fire.
I'm not talking about guts, I'm talking about ideals.Yopaz said:
Whether you freeze up or not is not something that you can really say or not as it is actually tangential to the issue; just because your motor-cortex gets overloaded and can't execute a decision (either immediately or properly) that doesn't mean there isn't any decision to be made.
It MAY be accurate to say "I'd probably just curl into a ball and turn catatonic" but it's intellectually dishonest to leave it there.
Because right now you are not overwhelmed by Fear, Anger, Adrenaline and weakness. We have the luxury of exploring this moral dilemma OBJECTIVELY, most people forced into this situation never considered such things before, and they hesitate or shut down to regret it for the rest of their lives if they live at all.
I understand what you mean by "just unable to do it", that is a reasonably predictable weakness of the mind and body but don't use that as an intellectual cop-out.
Face the possibility that you keep your composure precisely because you have been THOUGHTFUL about such issues of life and death. I'm not looking at this "lightly" I'm looking at this objectively, eliminating the reactive emotions that one would feel and focusing on the ideals and aspirations of myself and the wider society.
I'm asking you to consider philosophically the morality of your responsibility
Conduct a thought experiment:
(1) Imagine. Think about the consequences of IF you had decided to kill him in this scenario.
And don't use the "I wouldn't have the guts" because is an assumption or a delusion, you may very well be mentally capable of making the decision and physically capable of doing it yet convince yourself you have gone catatonic.
(2) also, imagine the your feelings and the consequences for if you CHOSE NOT TO shoot him.
and no, being overwhelmed by fear/shock/stress is NOT a decision, it is like assuming your gun will jam, or you just happen to have a stroke at that moment. Overcome by fear/stress is not an intellectual element it is a failure of the human system, it is your brain's Blue Screen of death. It is real, it can affect anyone, but it is NOT predictable nor dependable.
You need to consider actively letting the enemy drag his/her wounded comrade into shelter were BOTH would be immune to fire.
"I know the solution sometimes is to fight back"
It's not enough just to know that, you have to know WHEN is the right time to fight back. This is far from academic, if you live in a democracy electing leaders who control armies, guns and maybe even nuclear arsenals, the public's opinion and judgement is pivotal. On a smaller and more significant scale, jury trials your judgement of a man's action often depend what was the "reasonable" or "justified" thing to do where it is left almost entirely up to you to decide what was on balance right or wrong.
I have not been in any particularly violent situation but I have through other experiences learned that morality is not something to be determined by a snap judgement in the heat of the moment.
OP is asking more that just what you WOULD do, but what you think you SHOULD do.
If taliban can muster up the respect to not fire at people dragging bodies?
<youtube=lAswSJn8ou4>
<youtube=lAswSJn8ou4>
If it's an RPG and it matters, probably not, FPS or other game and I'm the one that wounded the bastard, I'll pop him. Seem to have no problem shooting medics in team online games so in single player that would likely carry over.
US propanda is often designed to make the rules of law look absurd (including in games). In real life, most countries stick to them rigourously, even if they are committing monstrosities elsewhere, because they need to worry about the treatment of their own captured soldiers/families/sons/daughters.
WW2 and WW1 were as serious as you get. One major escape in WW2 could be utterly devastating due to the sheer amount of effort required to bring someone in. Nonetheless, there were massive penalties - even enforced by the nazis - for abusing PoWs and for killing medics etc. After the English soldiers were caught during the 'great escape' having escaped the camp (*), and whilst they were mostly executed, the germa SAS who killed them were prosecuted and either jailed or sent to zero-survival battle to die.
WW2 and WW1 were as serious as you get. One major escape in WW2 could be utterly devastating due to the sheer amount of effort required to bring someone in. Nonetheless, there were massive penalties - even enforced by the nazis - for abusing PoWs and for killing medics etc. After the English soldiers were caught during the 'great escape' having escaped the camp (*), and whilst they were mostly executed, the germa SAS who killed them were prosecuted and either jailed or sent to zero-survival battle to die.
Taliban... Iraq... what? Who knows what organisation that guy was part of, secular Baathist, Iranian backed Shia, Al Qaeda. But definitely not Taliban who are NOT merciful nor respectful to prisoners.grenadejuggler said:
If only Taliban, Al Qaeda and other extremist organisations showed even a fraction of the same respect to the Prisoners of War they decapitate in their sick internet snuff videos...
Don't get me started.
For the love of god, SOURCE PLEASE!Azrael the Cat said:
Hitler's "Commando orders" were clear and infamous in their cruelty, he ordered their deaths purely because he was personally angered by their effectiveness and hypocritical when his own special forces used the same tactics. The only reason SS units who executed prisoners were sent to such battles was because they were fanatics; fanatical enough to execute escapees, fanatical enough to fight to the death on the eastern front.
"US propanda is often designed to make the rules of law look absurd (including in games)."
Are you saying Bobby Kotick is on the pay of the Department of Defence, I don't know what is more ludicrous; the idea that the DoD trying that or the idea that they could ever match his price, the money man of the most valuable entertainment product IN HISTORY!
US has propaganda games but you know what... no one plays them. America's Army sucks because it is too much like the real thing yet unlike the real thing you don't get:
-paid
-medical cover
-fit
-to use actual guns
-to actually achieve anything
It's purely a recruiting tool.
"In real life, most countries stick to the (rules of law) rigourously, even if they are committing monstrosities elsewhere"
Really? Back in the "good old days" when the Americans took Dachau Death Camp they summarily executed at least 100 uniformed german soldiers after they had surrendered. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_massacre] None of the American soldiers were even charged.
And more officially when German Special Forces tried dressing as civilians and American troops in sneak raids, all those captured were ordered to be summarily executed. See the geneva convention is VERY PARTICULAR on what constitutes lawful combatants and lack of a uniform practically defines them as unlawful combatants void of protection by Geneva Convention. Yet in this day you slap around a child-murdering Talib who's deliberately dressed in civilian garb then historically-illiterate goons will cry "oooooh, what a horrible precedent discarding the Geneva Conventions".
BTW: nothing in the Geneva Convention nor any rules of law stops you shooting an armed and uniformed enemy, even if moving wounded.
i would shoot the guys helping him but probably not him unless, he was shotting at my team/army/group or whatever you want to call it