SAF dunking death case
-
those sentences were just a farce...probably the lightest in the world for murder. i say hang them.
-
You have missed the point.Originally posted by Gedanken:It's not a case of covering up, caleb. What's the military tribunal there for if not to handle such cases? It's a court that specialises in military cases, and the key to that specialisation is that the members of the tribunal know and understand the context within which the cases are presented - to send the case to a civil court, which does not necessarily understand the full implications of the situation, is to do the case a disservice. It's tantamount to sending a patient to a GP to have a brain tumour removed. Sure, the guy's a doctor, but why send the patient to him if a specialist is available to do the job?
While it can't be fairly described as being completely accidental, I think it's a stretch to assume that the instructors intended to drown the trainees. Knowing the consequences, they would have been mad to have done it with full intent, wouldn't they?
If it were impossible for them not to have known that the actions to which they were subjecting their trainees were likely to result in their deaths, then, in subjecting their trainees to these actions, they must be said to have intentionally subjected the latter to actions that they knew would be likely to have resulted in their deaths.
It is true that they did not intend to kill the trainees; but that does not change the fact that they knew that what they were doing was likely to kill the trainees.
So the argument isn't 'knowing the consequences, they would have been mad to have done it with full intent'; but rather 'knowing whatever it is that we can be sure that they must have known, how can they not have done whatever it is that they did do, with the intent to subject the relevant persons to the risk of sustaining death or of serious injury (where this was not at all warranted from the point of view of the training that they were supposed to adminstering to these persons).
Given the putative character of what they did, these men did deserve to be tried before the bar of a universal law.
Moreover, while the judge you speak of, undoubtedly made 'superfluous remarks' and 'remarks which it was not within his competence to make', that does not change the fact that it was right that the case should have been tried before him (given the nature of the offence in question). -
If you're right, MrBach, what's the point of having a military tribunal? By your reasoning, every case that the military court is designed to handle can in fact be dealt with by the civil courts, and therfore the military tribunals are a redundant structure and should be dismantled.
-
I'll disagree with you there, MrBach. Your arument has gone even further than the charges brought against the 4 men, because you have made the conceptual leap from an act that is dangerous, to one that is patently lethal. Consider the following:Originally posted by MrBach:The fact that a soldier's job is more hazardous than that of a student has nothing to do with the reason why those 2 men lost their lives; and that is why my analogy is relevant.
These men did not die because of the hazardous character of their occupations as soldiers; just as a student who dies as the result of being forced by a teacher or a school bully to jump from a height that is likely to kill him if he were to jump from it, cannot be said to have met his death because of the hazards that are associated with being a student.
These men died because they were forcibly made subject to actions that were forseeably likely to result in their deaths and since the actions in question can in no way be defined as being a part of the occupational hazards that are associated with being a soldier, however great these hazards may be, it has to follow therefore that the persons who had subjected them to these actions, effectively forced them to engage in what could be described as a game of Russian roulette.
If school bullies or teachers who kill students by forcing them to engage in actions that are forseeably likely to result in their deaths, must be judged to have done something that in the nature of the case would deserve to be brought before the bar of the sort of law that is universal in its reach (and is also able to be seen as such), then so must soldiers who force other soldiers to engage in a game of Russian roulette, be judged to have done the same thing.
Given the nature of what they did, it is therefore immaterial where and when they did it, and however many persons may have sanctioned it or however long it might have been going on or however long the persons who had sanctioned it, might have been sacntioning it; for if you say otherwise, would you then suggest that it if it were to be part of a long-established tradition or a training routine that soldiers in some regiment should force other soldiers to engage in a game of Russian roulette, then the first group of soldiers ought not to be seen as having done something that in the nature of the case would deserve to be tried before the bar of the sort of law that is (and is seen to be) utterly universal in its reach?
Ben
1) Statistically, more than 50% of all fatalities as the result of a fall occur at less than 2 metres of height. If, for example, a student practicing the hugh jump should land the wrong way and break his neck, is the PE teacher to be brought up on charges?
2) I'm not sure if you remember the case at Catholic Junior College where a student accidentally impaled himself on a javelin. Now the javelin was sticking out of the ground, and despite the breach of safety protocols the verdict was misadventure. I'm not trying to argue for a verdict of misadventure in the dunking case, but it does show that in your school example, leeway can and indeed has been given to a greater degree than in the dunking case.
3) I'd take you up on your definition of "actions that were forseeably likely to result in their deaths". If death was likely, the majority of the cohort in the course would be dead. On the other hand, the likelihood of death was feasible, one dead trainee and another almost killed would be a result fitting the likelihood. Now the difference between "likely" and "feasible" may seem fine, but it makes all the difference between judging the instructors' actions as either dangerous or lethal, with according differences between the charges laid.
4) On the basis of the distinction between a dangerous and a lethal course of action, your Russian Roulette example is not appropriate.
Nonetheless, these are good points that you have raised, and in my view they serve to demonstrate the slippery slope through which Pandiaraj and Bala have been railroaded. -
Whether the offences is to be try in which court depends on the place and the nature of the offences of the seviceman.
Personally, I felt that this case is tried in civil court is by and large because of the media. -
Even if it's open Civilian law should apply to civilians and Military law for military personnel. According to situation of course. This is not a case where civilians are doing something not out of the 'norm' expected in civilian life. This is a case about military personnel going thru military training.Originally posted by caleb_chiang:What you said is true but only exist in the old ages where SAF is still closed. Now with the open concept, they will not cover up any more of these serious incidents.
Under the correct laws of SAF, What you get from the exterior, you will get the same in military DB but doubt they exercise that. What happened is not really an accident but more of intentioning drowning of the trainee... Think they would cancel that "training" in the future...
If you are arguing that during training, these cannot be prevented... The trainers should know the limits of the trainee and not push the limits too far like for this instant, holding the person in the water till they lost strength to struggle and eventually drown... WTF!
I'm not saying these things can't be prevented during training. I'm saying it was a freak accident and the nature of such training has a nature of being hazardous. I doubt the defendants acted with the intention to drown the victim. Dunking the soldier was "part" of the training. I'm sure there are commandos and other NSmen here who have gone through it. In fact, I knew a friend who was at the same course that the incident happened. He went through the same dunking excerise as everyone in the course. If it wasn't an accident, we're looking at about 100 dead bodies (including my friend) instead of one.
Sure trainers and planners must look into ways to lessen such accidents but they can't "soften" their training just to appease the mob. The military has to train like their soldiers are going to war because the enemy isn't going to soften up on their soldiers. -
Was it part of the training manual? I'm sure this was the issue raised by the prosecution and not whether the training is realistic.Originally posted by 443BXdrv:Dunking the soldier was "part" of the training. I'm sure there are commandos and other NSmen here who have gone through it. In fact, I knew a friend who was at the same course that the incident happened. He went through the same dunking excerise as everyone in the course. If it wasn't an accident, we're looking at about 100 dead bodies (including my friend) instead of one.
Oh .. I think we need to increase the sentence .. since 100 people are involved now. Almost causing grevious hurt to 100 trainees. -
It doesn't matter which is harsher that's not the point. If the person is doing it as a civilian, he should be tried in a civilian court. If he did it while breaking military law, he will be tried under both. Ie: steals a SAF weapon or vehicle to commit the crime.Originally posted by Nikar:if military law is harshr, then they should go for military law.
by the way, if a SAF soldier robs someone, and assuming that he can only be charged under one system of law(Civilian law vs. Military law), which one is harsher? military law isn't? but i thought military law only at the most is DB, and no caning?
DB is the military prison. The military has its own forms of punishment. What form of punishment they apply there shouldn't be matter either. That is also out of the point. The defendants should be have been court marshaled and tried in a military court since what they did was within a military environment ie training. -
[quote]Originally posted by Gedanken:
[b]
I'll disagree with you there, MrBach. Your arument has gone even further than the charges brought against the 4 men, because you have made the conceptual leap from an act that is dangerous, to one that is patently lethal. Consider the following:
Response:
The dangers associated with any given act are not by themselves a reason for regarding the act in question as an act that in the nature of the case ought to tried before the bar of a universal law; and 'the conceptual leap' I am making is therefore not from a dangerous act to a still more dangerous act, but from an act that, regardless of however great its inherent dangers are, is an act that cannot possibly have been willed (at any possible stage of its execution) by someone other than the person who should have made himself subject to it, to a different act that in the nature of the case cannot be said to have been capable of being willed by the person in question in this fashion.
1) Statistically, more than 50% of all fatalities as the result of a fall occur at less than 2 metres of height. If, for example, a student practicing the hugh jump should land the wrong way and break his neck, is the PE teacher to be brought up on charges?
Response:
I am prepared to concede that this is true but from what I have posted above, it ought to be apparent to you that what would make the crucial difference is whether the person subjected to the act in question, can be said to have been in a position to will his exposure to all of the possible dangers that would have been associated with this act at every stage of its execution; and that is why a death that occurs as the result of a student's following a teacher's instructions concerning how he might execute a certain athletic routine, and a death that occurs when the teacher makes the routine in question more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be (and in a way that escapes the awareness of the student who has been asked to perform it) should not both be viewed in the same light.
In the former case, the teacher wasn't doing anything directly to amplify the dangers associated with performing the routine in question (by making the routine more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be); but in the latter case (if, for instance, the teacher had deliberately removed the mat from the spot on the other side of the bar where the student might have been typically expected to land after completing his jump) then I think that what the teacher will have done in this regard would deserve to be viewed as criminal.
2) I'm not sure if you remember the case at Catholic Junior College where a student accidentally impaled himself on a javelin. Now the javelin was sticking out of the ground, and despite the breach of safety protocols the verdict was misadventure. I'm not trying to argue for a verdict of misadventure in the dunking case, but it does show that in your school example, leeway can and indeed has been given to a greater degree than in the dunking case.
Response:
If the breach of the protocols in question was unintentional, then it is clear that the verdict should be misadventure; but where it can be established that there had been an intent on the part of the relevant persons to have these protocols removed (so that the routine should be rendered more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be), I would then think that there would be grounds for framing criminal charges against these persons.
"3) I'd take you up on your definition of "actions that were forseeably likely to result in their deaths". If death was likely, the majority of the cohort in the course would be dead. On the other hand, the likelihood of death was feasible, one dead trainee and another almost killed would be a result fitting the likelihood. Now the difference between "likely" and "feasible" may seem fine, but it makes all the difference between judging the instructors' actions as either dangerous or lethal, with according differences between the charges laid."
Response:
Death was likely given the nature of the specific actions that were performed upon the two trainees; and given the degree to which the persons performing these actions had the power to minimise the dangers associated with their performance of these actions (at every stage of their execution of these actions upon the latter), it may well be that the majority of the instances wherein they had performed similar actions upon others, were instances wherein they had acted in such a way as to reduce (as they well had it within their power to do) the dangers that would otherwise have been associated with their actions (and that were in fact associated with the specific actions that had led to the deaths of the two trainees in question).
Given the intentional nature of the aforesaid specific actions (that is given the fact that the persons performing these actions ought to have known that the specific persons they were performing these specifc actions upon were very likely to be seriously injured or to die as a result of having these actions performed upon them and given the further fact that the first group of persons had it within their power to reduce the risk suffered by the second group by performing a set of actions different to the set of actions that were actually performed upon the latter), we have to suppose therefore that the persons performing these actions had deliberately intended to risk life and limb.
It follows therefore that in the case of the specific actions for which the two soldiers were convicted (as opposed to other similar actions that they may have performed at various times in the past on other trainees), there is a valid parity with my example of an officer forcing one of his men to engage in a game of Russian Roulette.
Ben -
I believe it wasn't part of the training manual. In that way, yeah, they are quilty for acting out of procedure. It was one of the unwritten things. Just one of those excerises that was useful but never written into the manual. I'm not saying whether they're gulity or not. If it sounded like it then I will clarify that it wasn't supposed to.Originally posted by Icemoon:Was it part of the training manual? I'm sure this was the issue raised by the prosecution and not whether the training is realistic.
Oh .. I think we need to increase the sentence .. since 100 people are involved now. Almost causing grevious hurt to 100 trainees.
Now you're starting to spin things. 100 trainees went through it.. maybe one broke a nail or two but most people were alright. This has been used for years so I doubt only a hundred went through it. -
This line of reasoning is incorrect, as I have already demonstrated in my response above.Originally posted by 443BXdrv:. He went through the same dunking excerise as everyone in the course. If it wasn't an accident, we're looking at about 100 dead bodies (including my friend) instead of one.
There is no reason to suppose that the specific actions performed upon the two trainees who died were replicated in the case of each of the other trainees and were therefore not more risky (and had not been intended to be more risky) than the other actions performed upon the other trainees.
In any case, it is never moral to perpetrate an injustice so as to achieve a good; this axiom is fundamental to Christianity.
In Greek mythology, King Minos of Crete had an arrangement with Athens, under the terms of which he would be agreeable to not invading Athens provided that selected Athenian children were regularly shipped over to Crete to be sacrificed to the Minotaur; such an arrangement is fundamentally unjust and it would be a sin to accept it.
If our society tolerated such injustice in the name of its own self-preservation, would our society be worth preserving?
Train the soldiers as much as you want and be aware that the very nature of the vocation is hazardous; but do not unjustly send them to their deaths or otherwise cruelly treat them.
Nothing can morally justify such a stance.
Ben -
I'll agree that the actions were dangerous, but like I said, we need to be careful about the difference between "can cause death" and "likely to cause death".Originally posted by MrBach:The dangers associated with any given act are not by themselves a reason for regarding the act in question as an act that in the nature of the case ought to tried before the bar of a universal law; and 'the conceptual leap' I am making is therefore not from a dangerous act to a still more dangerous act, but from an act that, regardless of however great its inherent dangers are, is an act that cannot possibly have been willed (at any possible stage of its execution) by someone other than the person who should have made himself subject to it, to a different act that in the nature of the case cannot be said to have been capable of being willed by the person in question in this fashion.
...
Death was likely given the nature of the specific actions that were performed upon the two trainees; and given the degree to which the persons performing these actions had the power to minimise the dangers associated with their performance of these actions (at every stage of their execution of these actions upon the latter), it may well be that the majority of the instances wherein they had performed similar actions upon others, were instances wherein they had acted in such a way as to reduce (as they well had it within their power to do) the dangers that would otherwise have been associated with their actions (and that were in fact associated with the specific actions that had led to the deaths of the two trainees in question).
Given the intentional nature of the aforesaid specific actions (that is given the fact that the persons performing these actions ought to have known that the specific persons they were performing these specifc actions upon were very likely to be seriously injured or to die as a result of having these actions performed upon them and given the further fact that the first group of persons had it within their power to reduce the risk suffered by the second group by performing a set of actions different to the set of actions that were actually performed upon the latter), we have to suppose therefore that the persons performing these actions had deliberately intended to risk life and limb.
It follows therefore that in the case of the specific actions for which the two soldiers were convicted (as opposed to other similar actions that they may have performed at various times in the past on other trainees), there is a valid parity with my example of an officer forcing one of his men to engage in a game of Russian Roulette.
It just does not make sense that the men charged, all career soldiers, would intentionally kill Sgt Hu (BTW, he was the one fatality - CPT Ho was not killed).
Did they perform a dangerous act? Yes. Did they push their luck - Diva and Ng most certainly did. Did any of them intend for their actions to cause Sgt Hu's (or anybody else's) death? No - why would they deliberately jeopardise their careers?
Unless you can demonstrate that Diva and Ng, knowing full well the consequences of Sgt Hu's death on their careers and indeed their lives, decided nonetheless that they were going to kill him, it simply cannot be said that they intentionally engaged in an act that would kill a trainee.
Where the Russian Roulette analogy fails is that, regardless of the one-in-six chance of the chanber containing a round, it that round went off in the soldier's temple, it would definitely kill him. Aspiration, on the other hand, occurs in degrees, a certain extent beyond which would kill a person, but the result is not as dichotomous as a bullet in the head.
Assuming that Diva and Ng had all intention of continuing their careers (which IMHO is a given), it cannot have been their intention to induce aspiration to the extent that it would kill Sgt Hu.
I'll agree that the risk was unnecessary, but the intent was to frighten and torment the living daylights out of the trainees. I don't support that course of action, but what I am saying is that it's different from deliberately doing something to kill a trainee.
The issue of the trainee's will is a wide gray area IMHO. After all, I understand that one of the tests for divers (both NS men and regulars) is to jump into a deep tank of water with their hands and feet tied. That is obviously more dangerous than dunking, and for NS men assigned to the NDU, it is not a voluntary or willing task, is it? What about taekwondo sparring? Despite the safety gear and procedures, there's still a chance of fatal injury, and I've seen instructors allow a fair few grudge matches on the mat in my time. Does any infantryman want to charge up a hill on a live-firing exercise, knowing that despite safety precautions, someone could trip and plant a stray round in them? The fact is that it's not a safe job, and being a conscript army, it's more often the case than not that a soldeir is willingly doing something. Just to be clear, I'm speaking strictly here about the issue of the soldier's will as a confounding factor.
Removing the mat is not an apt comparison. If the high-jump analogy were to be used, the charged men's actions would be closer to raising the bar beyond a reasonable point at which the student would land safely.Originally posted by MrBach:I am prepared to concede that this is true but from what I have posted above, it ought to be apparent to you that what would make the crucial difference is whether the person subjected to the act in question, can be said to have been in a position to will his exposure to all of the possible dangers that would have been associated with this act at every stage of its execution; and that is why a death that occurs as the result of a student's following a teacher's instructions concerning how he might execute a certain athletic routine, and a death that occurs when the teacher makes the routine in question more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be (and in a way that escapes the awareness of the student who has been asked to perform it) should not both be viewed in the same light.
In the former case, the teacher wasn't doing anything directly to amplify the dangers associated with performing the routine in question (by making the routine more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be); but in the latter case (if, for instance, the teacher had deliberately removed the mat from the spot on the other side of the bar where the student might have been typically expected to land after completing his jump) then I think that what the teacher will have done in this regard would deserve to be viewed as criminal.
...
If the breach of the protocols in question was unintentional, then it is clear that the verdict should be misadventure; but where it can be established that there had been an intent on the part of the relevant persons to have these protocols removed (so that the routine should be rendered more dangerous than it would otherwise need to be), I would then think that there would be grounds for framing criminal charges against these persons.
I, in turn, have to concede that Sgt Hu's death was the result of safety measures, in the forms of both the TSR and common sense, being intentionally breached. However, intentionally breaching safety rules is entirely different from intentionally killing another soldier.
In any case, I take the court's reluctance to press murder or manslaughter charges as their recognition of this lack of intent.
Ultimately, though, the above pertains to the charging of the two LTAs, which I am not questioning here. -
Don't know about that moral argument, dude - are you sure you want to get into that?Originally posted by MrBach:In any case, it is never moral to perpetrate an injustice so as to achieve a good; this axiom is fundamental to Christianity.
In Greek mythology, King Minos of Crete had an arrangement with Athens, under the terms of which he would be agreeable to not invading Athens provided that selected Athenian children were regularly shipped over to Crete to be sacrificed to the Minotaur; such an arrangement is fundamentally unjust and it would be a sin to accept it.
If our society tolerated such injustice in the name of its own self-preservation, would our society be worth preserving?
Train the soldiers as much as you want and be aware that the very nature of the vocation is hazardous; but do not unjustly send them to their deaths or otherwise cruelly treat them.
Nothing can morally justify such a stance.
Ben
Christian scriptures are full of examples of God himself destroying for a greater good - Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's Flood come immediately to mind. On top of that, Joshua smote his way into God's good books.
Despite the Emperor's pleading, Sun Tzu beheaded some of his concubines to instill discipline in the army. Yet, as we know, the Emperor ultimately praised Sun Tzu for his will, and the Art of War is still regarded as essential reading for anyone in a command position.
There is no universal set of moral rules, and I suspect going there is only going to open a huge can of worms. -
It wasn't really murder in the first place as Hu Enhuai's death wasn't pre-meditated. The charge should have been culpable homicide.Originally posted by Gedanken:In any case, I take the court's reluctance to press murder or manslaughter charges as their recognition of this lack of intent. -
I expect that if the prosecution could find the grounds on which to prove it, they would have gone for that.Originally posted by iveco:It wasn't really murder in the first place as Hu Enhuai's death wasn't pre-meditated. The charge should have been culpable homicide. -
1) "Where the Russian Roulette analogy fails is that, regardless of the one-in-six chance of the chanber containing a round, it that round went off in the soldier's temple, it would definitely kill him. Aspiration, on the other hand, occurs in degrees, a certain extent beyond which would kill a person, but the result is not as dichotomous as a bullet in the head. "
Response:
Well then modify the analogy so that the bullet in the chamber is of such a character that it will not necessarily cause the death of the person into whose head it is fired; say, that the likelihood of its killing someone in the event it were to be fired into his head is indeterminate although obviously and significantly nonzero; and then what you will have is a scenario wherein it would still be the case that if an officer were to force one of his men to engage in a game of Russian Roulette, it would yet be impossible for him not to know that a significantly likely outcome of this game would be the death of the man in question.
It is therefore true that ‘asphyxiation occurs in degrees’ and a person asphyxiating someone else may not know the degree to which he would have to be asphyxiating this person before death could occur; but that does not change the fact that he cannot but know that by asphyxiating someone (particularly where he would also know himself to be doing this more strenuously than would be his usual custom) he would be subjecting the latter to a definite risk of death, if not of serious injury; and that is my point, and why also my analogy of the Russian Roulette is apt.
2) "Assuming that Diva and Ng had all intention of continuing their careers (which IMHO is a given), it cannot have been their intention to induce aspiration to the extent that it would kill Sgt Hu. "
Response:
This is beside the point; for even if they did not intend and therefore could not have known (as a matter of certainty) that Sgt Hu would die as a result of their actions, they must have undoubtedly realised that their actions would invariably risk the life of Sgt Hu.
3) "The issue of the trainee's will is a wide gray area IMHO. After all, I understand that one of the tests for divers (both NS men and regulars) is to jump into a deep tank of water with their hands and feet tied. That is obviously more dangerous than dunking, and for NS men assigned to the NDU, it is not a voluntary or willing task, is it? "
Response:
I agree that if it isnÂ’t voluntary, then it may be immoral to require it of someone; but that only means that someone will probably have to die, before the heads of those responsible for the relevant state of affairs can begin to roll .
4) "What about taekwondo sparring? Despite the safety gear and procedures, there's still a chance of fatal injury, and I've seen instructors allow a fair few grudge matches on the mat in my time. "
Response:
So long as the combatants are aware of the risks to their safety (despite the safety gear and procedures), then they need not be supposed to be engaging in this sort of activity involuntarily; and if the ‘grudge matches’ that the instructors allow (with the full knowledge that safety procedures are to be done away with during these matches) ever do result in a death, then the instructors would themselves be criminally culpable for the death in question.
5) 'Does any infantryman want to charge up a hill on a live-firing exercise, knowing that despite safety precautions, someone could trip and plant a stray round in them? The fact is that it's not a safe job, and being a conscript army, it's more often the case than not that a soldeir is willingly doing something. Just to be clear, I'm speaking strictly here about the issue of the soldier's will as a confounding factor."
Response:
The infantryman charging up the hill could have weighed the risks associated with his charging up the hill beforehand and then decided that the risks in question did not outweigh the risks attendant upon his refusal to charge up the hill; and in the same way the conscript can weigh the risks that are associated with being a conscript and those that are associated with a refusal on his part to serve in the army and then decide that he would be better off submitting himself to being conscripted; in this sense I do concede that it is indeed possible that Sgt Hu should have weighed beforehand the risks that would have been associated with his decision to submit himself to being ‘dunked’.
However, it is doubtful whether Sgt Hu would have been in a position to refuse to submit himself to being ‘dunked’ at a time when the ‘dunking’ to which he was being subjected, should have begun to bring about his asphyxiation, and because the persons ‘dunking’ him ought to have known that such a state of affairs was likely to arise over the course of the process of ‘dunking’ to which they were subjecting him (apart from knowing that whatever they were doing in this regard was inherently likely to produce asphyxiation in him), we have to suppose therefore that they were also aware of the fact that their direct actions served to seriously risk the life and limb of Sgt Hu (and this in a way that he himself may not have been willing to consent to, were he able to do so).; this being the case, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they had toyed with the life of Sgt Hu, regardless of whether one were to maintain that they had done so in the name of protecting their country, or of advancing (or of preserving their careers) or for the sheer sake of the enjoyment which it can be supposed to have brought them.
Under the circumstances, what these men did would seem to me to be the sort of offence that deserves to be tried before the bar of a universal law
6) "Removing the mat is not an apt comparison. If the high-jump analogy were to be used, the charged men's actions would be closer to raising the bar beyond a reasonable point at which the student would land safely."
Response:
Why is it not an apt comparison? If the removal of the mat made it certain that the student would be exposed to great risk, then I don't see how removing it intentionally could fail to be tantamount to the deliberate performance of an act that would expose someone to great risk?
Raising the bar in the way you have suggested is unapt; because the raising of the bar would only pose a danger to the student if the student were able to clear the height that it represents, so that the danger incurred by the student would still have to be incurred by him by way of his performance of an action that he would have to have been able to successfully effect on his own; of course, you could then say that by being forced to make the attempt at clearing the height represented by the raised bar (regardless of whether or not he would be able to clear it), the student would be forced to do something that would risk his safety; but if so, then your example of the raising of the bar would have parity with my example of the removal of the mat.
7) "I, in turn, have to concede that Sgt Hu's death was the result of safety measures, in the forms of both the TSR and common sense, being intentionally breached. However, intentionally breaching safety rules is entirely different from intentionally killing another soldier."
Response:
I never said that there was an intent to kill a soldier; I said rather that there was an intent to expose a soldier to a serious risk of death, and that given that the exposure in question was deliberately effected (and that it wasn't something that it would have necessarily been within the power of the soldier in question to have knowingly consented to), the parties responsible for bringing about this exposure have arguably committed a deed for which they would deserve to be tried before the bar of a law that is universal in its reach.
And dude, I'm a Christian, and so the end can never justify the means; we may never do commit so that good may come; never.
Ben -
You are wrong.Originally posted by Gedanken:Don't know about that moral argument, dude - are you sure you want to get into that?
Christian scriptures are full of examples of God himself destroying for a greater good - Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's Flood come immediately to mind. On top of that, Joshua smote his way into God's good books.
Despite the Emperor's pleading, Sun Tzu beheaded some of his concubines to instill discipline in the army. Yet, as we know, the Emperor ultimately praised Sun Tzu for his will, and the Art of War is still regarded as essential reading for anyone in a command position.
There is no universal set of moral rules, and I suspect going there is only going to open a huge can of worms.
Morality is universal; the true moral law is binding on all men without exception.
The Catholic Church teaches that there are 'exceptionless moral norms' (see Pope John Paul's 'Veritatis Splendor' on moral relativism).
The moral law has an 'empire de jure' over all possible worlds (to quote C S Lewis).
As a Christian and Catholic, I believe in the universality of the moral law.
Ben -
Doesn't modifying the odds defeat the purpose of raising Russian Roulette as an analogy? After all, the whole idea of Russian Roulette is its decidedly deadly nature, and the usual raison d'etre of its use as an analogy.Originally posted by MrBach:Well then modify the analogy so that the bullet in the chamber is of such a character that it will not necessarily cause the death of the person into whose head it is fired; say, that the likelihood of its killing someone in the event it were to be fired into his head is indeterminate although obviously and significantly nonzero; and then what you will have is a scenario wherein it would still be the case that if an officer were to force one of his men to engage in a game of Russian Roulette, it would yet be impossible for him not to know that a significantly likely outcome of this game would be the death of the man in question.
It is therefore true that ‘asphyxiation occurs in degrees’ and a person asphyxiating someone else may not know the degree to which he would have to be asphyxiating this person before death could occur; but that does not change the fact that he cannot but know that by asphyxiating someone (particularly where he would also know himself to be doing this more strenuously than would be his usual custom) he would be subjecting the latter to a definite risk of death, if not of serious injury; and that is my point, and why also my analogy of the Russian Roulette is apt.
Yes, they knowingly risked his life, but going back to the origin of this part of the discussion, I was asseting to caleb that the death was not intentional, so it is in fact the point.Originally posted by MrBach:This is beside the point; for even if they did not intend and therefore could not have known (as a matter of certainty) that Sgt Hu would die as a result of their actions, they must have undoubtedly realised that their actions would invariably risk the life of Sgt Hu.
Theoretically speaking, well and good. However, in practice, I think any soldier in any combat unit would know that the foundation of any military is obedience to commands, without which the military would simply cease to function. When the platoon sargeant says charge, you charge, and then the Taekwondo instructor says fight, you fight - no two ways about it. It's not an excuse - it's the simply reality of military life, to paraphrase the Chief Justice, in "any army in the world".Originally posted by MrBach:I agree that if it isnÂ’t voluntary, then it may be immoral to require it of someone; but that only means that someone will probably have to die, before the heads of those responsible for the relevant state of affairs can begin to roll .
...
So long as the combatants are aware of the risks to their safety (despite the safety gear and procedures), then they need not be supposed to be engaging in this sort of activity involuntarily; and if the ‘grudge matches’ that the instructors allow (with the full knowledge that safety procedures are to be done away with during these matches) ever do result in a death, then the instructors would themselves be criminally culpable for the death in question.
...
The infantryman charging up the hill could have weighed the risks associated with his charging up the hill beforehand and then decided that the risks in question did not outweigh the risks attendant upon his refusal to charge up the hill; and in the same way the conscript can weigh the risks that are associated with being a conscript and those that are associated with a refusal on his part to serve in the army and then decide that he would be better off submitting himself to being conscripted; in this sense I do concede that it is indeed possible that Sgt Hu should have weighed beforehand the risks that would have been associated with his decision to submit himself to being ‘dunked’.
The same law is recognised by the military tribunal. While being judged by a jury of one's peers is obviously not a Singaporean principle, having a military case tried by a generalist civilian court instead of the more appropriate and well-versed military court, which was easily available, is a travesty.Originally posted by MrBach:However, it is doubtful whether Sgt Hu would have been in a position to refuse to submit himself to being ‘dunked’ at a time when the ‘dunking’ to which he was being subjected, should have begun to bring about his asphyxiation, and because the persons ‘dunking’ him ought to have known that such a state of affairs was likely to arise over the course of the process of ‘dunking’ to which they were subjecting him (apart from knowing that whatever they were doing in this regard was inherently likely to produce asphyxiation in him), we have to suppose therefore that they were also aware of the fact that their direct actions served to seriously risk the life and limb of Sgt Hu (and this in a way that he himself may not have been willing to consent to, were he able to do so).; this being the case, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they had toyed with the life of Sgt Hu, regardless of whether one were to maintain that they had done so in the name of protecting their country, or of advancing (or of preserving their careers) or for the sheer sake of the enjoyment which it can be supposed to have brought them.
Under the circumstances, what these men did would seem to me to be the sort of offence that deserves to be tried before the bar of a universal law
Removing the mat is not apt because it changes the parameters of the situation entirely. As I said before with reagrds to the aspiration issue, it is a matter of degrees, not a sea change.Originally posted by MrBach:Why is it not an apt comparison? If the removal of the mat made it certain that the student would be exposed to great risk, then I don't see how removing it intentionally could fail to be tantamount to the deliberate performance of an act that would expose someone to great risk?
Raising the bar in the way you have suggested is unapt; because the raising of the bar would only pose a danger to the student if the student were able to clear the height that it represents, so that the danger incurred by the student would still have to be incurred by him by way of his performance of an action that he would have to have been able to successfully effect on his own; of course, you could then say that by being forced to make the attempt at clearing the height represented by the raised bar (regardless of whether or not he would be able to clear it), the student would be forced to do something that would risk his safety; but if so, then your example of the raising of the bar would have parity with my example of the removal of the mat.
On the issue of intent, as I said earlier, this leads back to my assertion to caleb that it was not intentional. As for the issue of the court selected, I stand by my assertion that a military tribunal was better-equipped to deal with the case in context.Originally posted by MrBach:I never said that there was an intent to kill a soldier; I said rather that there was an intent to expose a soldier to a serious risk of death, and that given that the exposure in question was deliberately effected (and that it wasn't something that it would have necessarily been within the power of the soldier in question to have knowingly consented to), the parties responsible for bringing about this exposure have arguably committed a deed for which they would deserve to be tried before the bar of a law that is universal in its reach.
Well and good, MrBach, and I have no argument with that. However, we are discussing a court case here, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes summed it up best when he said, "My job is to uphold the law, not do justice", which pretty much puts paid to the moral aspect within this debate.Originally posted by MrBach:And dude, I'm a Christian, and so the end can never justify the means; we may never do commit so that good may come; never. -
Pardon my saying, but such absolutism is a rather dangerous way of thinking. A Crusader or jihadist could use the same line of logic to justify all manner of acts, and i think we all know how that always ends up.Originally posted by MrBach:You are wrong.
Morality is universal; the true moral law is binding on all men without exception.
The Catholic Church teaches that there are 'exceptionless moral norms' (see Pope John Paul's 'Veritatis Splendor' on moral relativism).
The moral law has an 'empire de jure' over all possible worlds (to quote C S Lewis).
As a Christian and Catholic, I believe in the universality of the moral law.
Ben -
There isn't evidence to support that the trainers went out of their way to make it slightly riskier for the two. It's their intent that makes it an accident or not. What did they do that were out of the norm? Or special in the case that led the death.Originally posted by MrBach:This line of reasoning is incorrect, as I have already demonstrated in my response above.
There is no reason to suppose that the specific actions performed upon the two trainees who died were replicated in the case of each of the other trainees and were therefore not more risky (and had not been intended to be more risky) than the other actions performed upon the other trainees.In any case, it is never moral to perpetrate an injustice so as to achieve a good; this axiom is fundamental to Christianity.
I don't see it as injustice when the persons involved were doing their duty which was to train. It's injustice in a normal situation to cause someone's death. Soldiers kill when they are at war that's nature and part of their jobs. Jesus never condemned anyone from soldiers to taxcollectors and ask them to stop what they're doing. Instead he told them to do what they're supposed to do but not do anything that was for their own selfish motives. Clearly not shown in this case.
BTW I ,too, am a Christian.If our society tolerated such injustice in the name of its own self-preservation, would our society be worth preserving?
Our society tolerates much worst and yes, in the name of its own self-preservation. You decide whether it is worth preserving or not.Train the soldiers as much as you want and be aware that the very nature of the vocation is hazardous; but do not unjustly send them to their deaths or otherwise cruelly treat them.
It would be unjust and cruel if they were sent driving off a cliff or running through a field of live landmines for no reason. The defendants followed a procedure (even though it wasn't written in the manual) which they felt was neccessary for this excerise. This isn't a first degree murder case, it's manslaughter because the death happened unintentionally. -
aiyoh .. so many xtians .. come to Eternal Hope and post leh.
-
I think you got it mixed up. Should be the other way round. If we have no absolute/universal morality, we can justify anything. Hey, they can say murder is right and you can only diam diam right?Originally posted by Gedanken:Pardon my saying, but such absolutism is a rather dangerous way of thinking. A Crusader or jihadist could use the same line of logic to justify all manner of acts, and i think we all know how that always ends up. -
History speaks for itself - how many atrocities have been carried out under the banner of religion and the claim of morality, by people who have followed under the assumption of such universality?Originally posted by Icemoon:I think you got it mixed up. Should be the other way round. If we have no absolute/universal morality, we can justify anything. Hey, they can say murder is right and you can only diam diam right? -
How can atrocities even be considered morality? In the first place, why are they "atrocities" if you are clearly in no positon to say so? Maybe we should call them "blessings" instead.Originally posted by Gedanken:History speaks for itself - how many atrocities have been carried out under the banner of religion and the claim of morality, by people who have followed under the assumption of such universality? -
well said!!Originally posted by MrBach:You are wrong.
Morality is universal; the true moral law is binding on all men without exception.
The Catholic Church teaches that there are 'exceptionless moral norms' (see Pope John Paul's 'Veritatis Splendor' on moral relativism).
The moral law has an 'empire de jure' over all possible worlds (to quote C S Lewis).
As a Christian and Catholic, I believe in the universality of the moral law.
Ben