I don't really understand, I must admit, what this question has to do with psychology.
Psychology is not about morality or ethics.
Psychology is about adaptation.
A psychologically healthy person is a person adapted to reality, a person with extremely adequate behavior.
Such a person considers murder in general, and not only in war, only as one of the possible options for their own behavior, one of the possible tools.
Yes, extremely unpleasant, yes, necessary only in extreme cases.
Similarly, when the State exercises its right to murder, it also calls it an ” exceptional measure of punishment.”.. That is, applied as an exception, not as a rule.
murder is unjustified in any situation, except when it is beneficial. for example, euthanasia, to save someone who is already dying from pain or a permanent comatose person from the fate of living on machines
but those who organize wars, catch nishtyaki from the victory in these wars and, as it were, pay the price of human lives, so it is profitable for them to say that you are fighting for your mother country and to die for it is worthy�
What is immoral is not those people who are forced to kill, because they are not favored for desertion, but those who create a situation where people are faced with a choice of ' kill or die’
From a moral point of view, war itself is unacceptable, and killing during war is only a matter of survival. There is, of course, senseless cruelty, sadism, blooming in such an atmosphere riotous color, but this is a completely different story.
Because wars are waged not by people, but by countries. As a result, moral norms at the individual human level are either distorted or completely replaced. It is right and good to kill enemies under the changed norms. After all, they are enemies. For this purpose, state propaganda specifically dehumanizes enemy soldiers. Both fascists and Colorads, they are not people. Subhumans, worse than animals. And so on.�
Of course, the winner of a war judges all those who remain based on their own moral standards. Our people are heroes. Strangers, defeated-criminals
When a soldier goes to war, he renounces the duty not to kill and the right not to be killed.
And he kills only other soldiers who have given up the right not to be killed and the duty not to kill anyone. He (a) kills people who have renounced the right not to be killed or, to put it another way, people who have deliberately become soldiers.
In other words, a person pays an equal price for the right to kill; he pays the risk of losing his own life.�
Unlike soldiers, the killer does not commit anything like this, and his victims do not know what they are doing and cannot give up being a victim.
In my opinion, for the same reasons that justify killing in self-defense. One way or another, a person finds himself in a situation where he has almost no choice, either to kill or to be killed/maimed. This does not make murder a good thing, but it does allow it to be justified to some extent, which already depends on the specific circumstances.
Another thing is what justification people can have for starting a war. My opinion is none.
I find the answers in this thread very hypocritical. If we turn to other topics concerning morality, we can see how the appropriate people called moralists and moralfags, show them blinkered and notorious that man is an animal, and that his lust needs to be satisfied, this individual freedom, and to condemn such people cannot be, and there will be psychological neuroses, so let's fucking all living things, the same animal. This is very liberal and everyone likes it very much on this site.
In another topic, about the 90s, for example, the local liberal public justifies the deaths of millions of old people and those who could not “integrate into the market” – competition. That is, everything is like in nature, social Darwinism; if you can't compete , you will die. No, well, it's a pity for the money, of course, but they “did not integrate into the market”- the same words are repeated by idols of the local liberal public, from Gaidar and Chubais to Ksenia Sobchak and Tema Lebedev.
At the same time, in this topic, a completely natural human urge to cruelty is condemned and shown as something terrible. What's the point? Why is the brutal competition of the 90s, called predatory capitalism, not condemned; bestiality associated with the satisfaction of lust-not condemned, and the behavior of a soldier in war-yes? Why did what was the norm for any man of the century until the second half of the 20th century suddenly become immoral and wrong? Little hipsters in branded sweaters masturbating on roller skates with powerful handsblack members of negroes-in real life, they condemn any manifestation of strength, masculinity, that very nature. They completely reject the moral right of a soldier to choose his own path. Where is the vaunted freedom, eh, liberals?
Because fighting for a country is a country, and a liberal is a person. They do not tolerate the country and absolutize all the bestiality of a “free” person. They oppose “progressivity” – the defense of their Homeland, coupled with the natural aggressive potential of a male being.
Liberalism lowers a person not just to the state of an animal, a beast, when you are no longer capable of common sense because of total moral relativism, as well as the pluralism of even the most idiotic thoughts (take the same Europe and its passion to let Arabs and Negroes to their homes, terrorists to blow up and slaughter European cities), but also does not give them the Any moral attitudes are condemned, any values other than bestiality are declared wrong. Any attempt to censor the stupidity or lies of TV or the Internet is an attack on holy democracy, don't touch it, damn Stalinist! And as you have already understood, the consciousness of a liberal embodies the thesis “everything is relative”. Love, justice, war, and even human nature.�
And it's the same with this topic (as with the rest on this site) – the liberal ignores thousands of years of continuous wars related to man, ignores the war heroes who gave their lives for the Great Victory of the 45th, he ignores the very essence of human energy, his central nervous system. Because animal instincts are alive in us, including the instincts of destruction – well, what could be easier than understanding this? But no, the liberal perception leaves us only the part of animality that is safe. Sticking a dick in a chick while your wife is pregnant is liberal, eating sushi and rolls, complaining about ham (did I spell that word correctly?) they didn't bring them to the shops and the damned Putin again does not allow freedom to flourish – this is liberal. Jumping around the temple like barbarians and yelling to grannies that the Virgin is something out there is liberal. And to understand that there are other values in society is no longer liberal. To understand that there are people in society who are more adapted to certain aggressive actions is no longer liberal. Only Negroes on porn videos and migrants populating Europe can be aggressive, and a liberal should not understand that a man is a man. � �
An endless amount of hypocrisy. Liberal hypocrisy in every issue. This is the squalor of thought. Twisting and simple lies. And even this answer will be ignored, of course, because I am telling the truth, and liberals like to pretend that the world they have invented, with fairies and unicorns, exists. But it doesn't exist. And you will not overthrow any Putin. And if he leaves on his own, there will be no Navalny in his place, for one simple reason:
Alexander Aleksandrovich Zinoviev, scientist, writer
…From a moral point of view, the Soviet intelligentsia is the most cynical and vile part of the population. She's better educated. Her mentality is exceptionally flexible, resourceful, and adaptable. She knows how to hide her nature, present her behavior in the best possible light, and find excuses. The authorities at least to some extent have to think about the interests of the country. The intelligentsia thinks only of itself. She is not a victim of the regime. She's a regime bearer. … a part of the intelligentsia, falling into opposition to the regime, expresses only their personal interests. For many of them, the opposition is beneficial. They enjoy the privileges of their position and at the same time acquire a reputation as victims of the regime.
…If intellectuals took the place of leaders of society, it would be much worse, because they have no sense of reality, common sense. For them, their words are more important than real laws and trends in social processes. The psychological principle of intellectuals is this: we could organize everything in the best possible way, but we are not given. The actual situation is that they can only organize their lives in the best possible way under conditions that are practically impossible, and therefore they are not able to act even at the level of the leaders of society they despise. The actual leaders obey the flow of life, and therefore they do something. Intellectuals are dissatisfied with the fact that the flow of life is beyond their control. They think it's wrong. They are dangerous because they look smart, but in reality they are professionally sophisticated fools.
It is generally assumed that people do not participate in wars of their own free will and often do not have the ability to avoid participation, and even when they do not defend themselves, but attack, the actual blame for the murders lies with those who give the orders. As a rule, the concept of military duty boils down to the fact that if a person does not follow orders, then his own fellow citizens will be executed.�
In cases of a professional army, people go to serve voluntarily and receive a reward. If no one serves in this case, then there will be a reason for conscription, that is, people will be blackmailed with punishment for refusing to serve. Thus, there is no reason for moral condemnation of military personnel for their direct activities, both in cases of conscription and in cases of professional service.�
People in war can commit murder and cause any other harm to civilians at their own will, and not because of the need for defense or following orders – such cases are associated with the fact that people who are prone to cruelty, sociopaths (psychopaths), also get to war, along with everyone else. Such people may want to participate in a military conflict in order to enrich themselves or satisfy other personal interests. They usually do this as mercenaries. Recruitment of mercenaries and participation in armed conflicts as mercenaries is usually considered a crime, and not only morally condemned.
I don't really understand, I must admit, what this question has to do with psychology.
Psychology is not about morality or ethics.
Psychology is about adaptation.
A psychologically healthy person is a person adapted to reality, a person with extremely adequate behavior.
Such a person considers murder in general, and not only in war, only as one of the possible options for their own behavior, one of the possible tools.
Yes, extremely unpleasant, yes, necessary only in extreme cases.
Similarly, when the State exercises its right to murder, it also calls it an ” exceptional measure of punishment.”.. That is, applied as an exception, not as a rule.
murder is unjustified in any situation, except when it is beneficial. for example, euthanasia, to save someone who is already dying from pain or a permanent comatose person from the fate of living on machines
but those who organize wars, catch nishtyaki from the victory in these wars and, as it were, pay the price of human lives, so it is profitable for them to say that you are fighting for your mother country and to die for it is worthy�
What is immoral is not those people who are forced to kill, because they are not favored for desertion, but those who create a situation where people are faced with a choice of ' kill or die’
From a moral point of view, war itself is unacceptable, and killing during war is only a matter of survival. There is, of course, senseless cruelty, sadism, blooming in such an atmosphere riotous color, but this is a completely different story.
Because wars are waged not by people, but by countries. As a result, moral norms at the individual human level are either distorted or completely replaced. It is right and good to kill enemies under the changed norms. After all, they are enemies. For this purpose, state propaganda specifically dehumanizes enemy soldiers. Both fascists and Colorads, they are not people. Subhumans, worse than animals. And so on.�
Of course, the winner of a war judges all those who remain based on their own moral standards. Our people are heroes. Strangers, defeated-criminals
When a soldier goes to war, he renounces the duty not to kill and the right not to be killed.
And he kills only other soldiers who have given up the right not to be killed and the duty not to kill anyone. He (a) kills people who have renounced the right not to be killed or, to put it another way, people who have deliberately become soldiers.
In other words, a person pays an equal price for the right to kill; he pays the risk of losing his own life.�
Unlike soldiers, the killer does not commit anything like this, and his victims do not know what they are doing and cannot give up being a victim.
In my opinion, for the same reasons that justify killing in self-defense. One way or another, a person finds himself in a situation where he has almost no choice, either to kill or to be killed/maimed. This does not make murder a good thing, but it does allow it to be justified to some extent, which already depends on the specific circumstances.
Another thing is what justification people can have for starting a war. My opinion is none.
I find the answers in this thread very hypocritical. If we turn to other topics concerning morality, we can see how the appropriate people called moralists and moralfags, show them blinkered and notorious that man is an animal, and that his lust needs to be satisfied, this individual freedom, and to condemn such people cannot be, and there will be psychological neuroses, so let's fucking all living things, the same animal. This is very liberal and everyone likes it very much on this site.
In another topic, about the 90s, for example, the local liberal public justifies the deaths of millions of old people and those who could not “integrate into the market” – competition. That is, everything is like in nature, social Darwinism; if you can't compete , you will die. No, well, it's a pity for the money, of course, but they “did not integrate into the market”- the same words are repeated by idols of the local liberal public, from Gaidar and Chubais to Ksenia Sobchak and Tema Lebedev.
At the same time, in this topic, a completely natural human urge to cruelty is condemned and shown as something terrible. What's the point? Why is the brutal competition of the 90s, called predatory capitalism, not condemned; bestiality associated with the satisfaction of lust-not condemned, and the behavior of a soldier in war-yes? Why did what was the norm for any man of the century until the second half of the 20th century suddenly become immoral and wrong? Little hipsters in branded sweaters masturbating on roller skates with powerful handsblack members of negroes-in real life, they condemn any manifestation of strength, masculinity, that very nature. They completely reject the moral right of a soldier to choose his own path. Where is the vaunted freedom, eh, liberals?
Because fighting for a country is a country, and a liberal is a person. They do not tolerate the country and absolutize all the bestiality of a “free” person. They oppose “progressivity” – the defense of their Homeland, coupled with the natural aggressive potential of a male being.
Liberalism lowers a person not just to the state of an animal, a beast, when you are no longer capable of common sense because of total moral relativism, as well as the pluralism of even the most idiotic thoughts (take the same Europe and its passion to let Arabs and Negroes to their homes, terrorists to blow up and slaughter European cities), but also does not give them the Any moral attitudes are condemned, any values other than bestiality are declared wrong. Any attempt to censor the stupidity or lies of TV or the Internet is an attack on holy democracy, don't touch it, damn Stalinist! And as you have already understood, the consciousness of a liberal embodies the thesis “everything is relative”. Love, justice, war, and even human nature.�
And it's the same with this topic (as with the rest on this site) – the liberal ignores thousands of years of continuous wars related to man, ignores the war heroes who gave their lives for the Great Victory of the 45th, he ignores the very essence of human energy, his central nervous system. Because animal instincts are alive in us, including the instincts of destruction – well, what could be easier than understanding this? But no, the liberal perception leaves us only the part of animality that is safe. Sticking a dick in a chick while your wife is pregnant is liberal, eating sushi and rolls, complaining about ham (did I spell that word correctly?) they didn't bring them to the shops and the damned Putin again does not allow freedom to flourish – this is liberal. Jumping around the temple like barbarians and yelling to grannies that the Virgin is something out there is liberal. And to understand that there are other values in society is no longer liberal. To understand that there are people in society who are more adapted to certain aggressive actions is no longer liberal. Only Negroes on porn videos and migrants populating Europe can be aggressive, and a liberal should not understand that a man is a man. � �
An endless amount of hypocrisy. Liberal hypocrisy in every issue. This is the squalor of thought. Twisting and simple lies. And even this answer will be ignored, of course, because I am telling the truth, and liberals like to pretend that the world they have invented, with fairies and unicorns, exists. But it doesn't exist. And you will not overthrow any Putin. And if he leaves on his own, there will be no Navalny in his place, for one simple reason:
Alexander Aleksandrovich Zinoviev, scientist, writer
It is generally assumed that people do not participate in wars of their own free will and often do not have the ability to avoid participation, and even when they do not defend themselves, but attack, the actual blame for the murders lies with those who give the orders. As a rule, the concept of military duty boils down to the fact that if a person does not follow orders, then his own fellow citizens will be executed.�
In cases of a professional army, people go to serve voluntarily and receive a reward. If no one serves in this case, then there will be a reason for conscription, that is, people will be blackmailed with punishment for refusing to serve. Thus, there is no reason for moral condemnation of military personnel for their direct activities, both in cases of conscription and in cases of professional service.�
People in war can commit murder and cause any other harm to civilians at their own will, and not because of the need for defense or following orders – such cases are associated with the fact that people who are prone to cruelty, sociopaths (psychopaths), also get to war, along with everyone else. Such people may want to participate in a military conflict in order to enrich themselves or satisfy other personal interests. They usually do this as mercenaries. Recruitment of mercenaries and participation in armed conflicts as mercenaries is usually considered a crime, and not only morally condemned.