Modern "Warrior" Ethics

[Makalakumu]

It seems as if the word "Warrior" has been trashed a lot in modern times. The myths and legends that drove this "meme" have been disabused or outright debunked. Or have they?

To me, the word "Warrior" describes a mindset, a philosophy, a system of ethics. And recently, I've been doing some research on various ethical systems. My question is this, is there a way to recast this image, with a modern set of ethics, for a modern martial artist to follow?

If so, what ethics would a modern warrior follow?

upnorthkyosa

ps - I'm using modern to describe the current cultural attitudes held by industrialized nations.

[Tgace]

This is what the US Army is doing to approach the subject...

http://www.armystudyguide.com/Warrior-Ethos/

[Tgace]

More

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98autumn/brinsfie.htm

[Makalakumu]

Would civilian ethical concerns would be different then a soldiers regarding martial arts?

The purpose of an ethical system is to inform our moral choices. For most martial artists the question of "when it is appropriate to use warrior skills" is a common question.

[Tgace]

Would civilian ethical concerns would be different then a soldiers regarding martial arts?

The purpose of an ethical system is to inform our moral choices. For most martial artists the question of "when it is appropriate to use warrior skills" is a common question.Depends on how you classify "warrior". IMO its used way too freely these days. Anybody and everybody is laying claim to the title, which cheapens it (when everybody is special nobody is). From my perspective, a Warrior has to "put it on the line for something". There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.

Every animal on the planet will fight to protect themselves when pressed. Dosent make them "warriors" in my view. Fewer will go towards the danger out of a sense of duty or service to their fellows or their ideals.

[Andrew Green]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.

Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.


There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.
Well said.

Unless you are willing to give your life for no other reason then the country you serve tells you too, and you take that as your full time occupation, you're not a warrior.

You might be a leader, a fighter, a activist or any other number of things.

[Makalakumu]

From my perspective, training in a martial art trains one in the arts of the warrior. Some may disagree with this assessment depending on the art, but that is just a lineage argument. As in, "can you tie your art to some famous warrior?"

Can someone train in the martial arts and not be a warrior? Yes. But, that is an ethical question. The reason someone is not a warrior is because they haven't assumed the philosophy, the mindset, the ethics of a warrior...not because they haven't learned the skills.

Putting one's life on the "line", duty, and honor, these are all aspects of warrior ethics, yet I think the philosophy can be more specific. More detailed. So that one could at least explain it better to others without the ambiguity inherit in our "modern" lives.

There are some well established systems of ethics out there. I wonder which one fits peoples concepts of a warrior the closest?

[Tgace]

This cross link could be productive...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24479

As to systems of ethics, why dont you post some that you know of and we can go from there?

[Tgace]

As to "putting it on the line". Thats an "action" as I see it, not an ethic. Living by a code, system of ethics, studying martial arts etc. Is emulating a warrior, not being one....

[Makalakumu]

This is taken from this site...

http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1992/ethical_systems.html


ETHICAL SYSTEMS

RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.

S- Brings about tolerance of other cultures. Keeps societies from falling apart. W- Confuses what ought to be done with what is cur-rently done.

South Seas Islanders practice cannibalism. Cannibalism is strictly prohibited in the U.S.

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY - Moral standards depend on God who is all-knowing. Any act that conforms to the law of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.

S- Standards are from a higher authority than humans. Gives reasons why man should behave morally. Gives worth to all equally. W- Can be arbitrary depend-ing on interpretation. Can we know the true divine authority?

Christian religions point believers to rules like the Ten Commandments.

UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each person's happiness is equally important.

S- Promotes human well-being and attempts to lessen human suffering. W- One person's good can be another's evil. Hard to predict accurately all consequences.

The U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII believing it was worth the loss of life to gain the end of the war and stop the higher loss of life if the war continued.

DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If not willing for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means.

S- It provides a special moral status for humans. Moral rules are universal. W- It says nothing about other living things. Rules can be abstract.

In the U.S. a continued emphasis on human rights for all people stems from a willingness to reason that justice and equal treatment ought to be applied universally.

VIRTUE ETHICS - Morals are internal. It seeks to produce good people who act well out of spontaneous goodness. It emphasizes living well and achieving excellence.

S- It internalize moral behavior. W- Offers no guidance for resolving ethical dilemmas.

A faculty determines that a student council officer with a genuine interest to serve deserves more recognition than one who just wants to beef up his resume.


There are many systems of ethics that currently exist. I'm wondering which best informs a warrior. Which philosophy would aid a warrior in putting one's life on the line and inform a warriors sense of duty and honor? All of this may just be personal preference, yet there just may be one that is a better all around fit.

[Tgace]

I dont think you are going to find many "warriors" who are going to subscribe wholly to a relativistic system of ethics. If nobody is "wrong" then how are you going to fight them? So to a certain culture, killing a woman because she was raped is "right", starving/slaughtering entire tribes/races of people is "right"...who are we to step in and say they were worng? Cannibalism, as practiced today in small tribes in obscure locations is different from an entire "modern" nation starting to practice it.

The Nazis thought they were right.

That whole line of thinking may be good for historians as far as making "judgments" about historic actions, but leaves us no course of action in the present time.

[Makalakumu]

Here are some more ethical systems. Some of them repeat, but there are new ones...




ETHICAL SYSTEMS


A Superficial Overview





Robin Dawes








Ethical Relativism







Some believe that any effort to establish ethical standards is futile because there can be no objective standards. This school of thought is called Ethical Relativism. It comes in two main flavours:




Individual Relativism: as long as the individual behaves in a way that they believe is moral and proper, there is no basis for criticising them.




Cultural Relativism: as long as the individual behaves in a way which is consistent with the moral beliefs of their culture, there is no basis for criticising them.

These philosophies are very weak in the sense that it is trivially easy to construct scenarios in which virtually nobody would be willing to agree with the conclusions. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a widely encountered viewpoint among those who shy away from ethical reflection. Some people support ethical relativism in the mistaken belief that the only alternative is moral absolutism (the belief that there are moral rules to which there are no exceptions). In fact, another alternative exists: moral objectivism or moral realism, in which the context of an action can be considered when evaluating the moral value of the action.










Some Recognized Ethical Theories




The following ethical theories or systems can serve as guidelines for thinking about ethical questions. None of them is perfect, and they should not be expected to provide simple resolutions to complex situations.

There are two broad categories of ethical systems:

Teleological systems: the consequences of an action are given priority. The ethical value of an action is determined by the desirability of the outcome it produces. Right actions are those which produce the greatest good. We will consider ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism.

Deontological systems: actions are considered to be intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the consequences they produce. We will consider divine command theory, virtue theory, Kantianism, and contractualism.












Teleological Systems




ETHICAL EGOISM

Central Theme: One ought to do whatever is in one’s own best interests, regardless of the effect on other people.




Strengths: corresponds to "natural law", survival of the fittest.




Weaknesses: individual interests may be completely contrary to the needs/goals of society.




Example: if possible to do so without being caught, one should rob a bank at the earliest opportunity.

UTILITARIANISM




Central Theme: One ought to seek to produce the greatest possible balance of good over evil for all who will be affected by one’s actions.




Strengths: Attempts to lessen human suffering.




Weaknesses: Something that brings happiness to one person may not bring happiness to another person.




Example: The U.S. justified dropping atomic bombs on Japan in WWII by claiming it was worth the loss of life to end the war and stop the higher loss of life if the war continued.

ACT-UTILITARIANISM

As individuals, we are obligated to apply the principal of utilitarianism in all situations.

Example: Spock sacrifices his life to stabilize the matter-antimatter reactor.



RULE-UTILITARIANISM

As a society, we should adopt rules which, if followed by everybody, will

achieve the best outcome in the long run.

Example: It is ethically correct to turn out the lights when a room is empty, because this reduces power consumption and pollution.







Deontological Systems



DIVINE COMMAND THEORY




Central Theme: Moral standards have been established by God who is all-knowing. An act that conforms to the law of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.




Strengths: Standards are from a higher authority than humans.




Weaknesses: can be arbitrary depending on interpretation. Can we know the true divine authority, or the true meaning of the divine commands?




Example: Religions that point believers to rule sets like the Ten Commandments.

VIRTUE THEORY




Central Theme: Morals are internal. Virtues are character traits that make possible the achievement of social good. An act is ethical if it conforms to the relevant virtues.




Strengths: assigns moral responsibility to the individual.




Weaknesses: relies on universal agreement on virtues.




Example: Serving on a student council because it will benefit others is more ethical than serving on the council because it will improve one’s resume.




KANTIANISM

Central Theme: An individual is acting ethically if the generalization of the act would be desirable as a universal law of behaviour. Acts must respect the human dignity and worth of others. (Developed in great detail by Kant.)




Strengths: applies the same rules to everybody, and values human dignity.




Weaknesses: excessively rigid interpretation can lead to outcomes which do not satisfy anybody.




Examples: The proposition "I may kill people whenever convenient" must be rejected because as a universal law this would permit other people to kill me if they found it convenient to do so.

However, Kant concludes that always telling the absolute truth is a moral obligation because lying does not respect the dignity and worth of the person to whom we lie.








CONTRACTUALISM

Central Theme: As members of society, we have implicit contracts with each other. Acts are ethical if they do not violate these contracts. Rules are acceptable if rational people agree that they form the basis for mutually beneficial relationships.




Strengths: supports social structure, and is based on widely shared notions of "fair play".




Weaknesses: can slide towards cultural relativism.




Example: it is unethical for a parent to fail to care for a child to the extent of their ability.

[The Kai]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider. The tactics used by a large body of soliders are different then the tactics/strategies used by a individual, especially when that individual is not part of or looking to reestablish himself as part of a larger unit.

Then there is need(s) as a civilian martial artist for lethal techniques? Is there a need for control techniques. repeat question for everything in between. What percentage of restraint, counter offensive and kill techniques need to be taught- on a battlefield there is probably very little need for a wristlock.

As a Martail artist there is simply more freedom of choice, I do not have to support the idea of a war-if I don't agree with the policies. As a Warrior/solider you have too.
IMHO too many martial artist get off on the whole "warrior" thing. "Why yes I train in Kenpo, I am of course a Warrior" . Then walk around like you have a stick up your behind cuz now you have the Honorable Warrior Pose thing!

I am a human being (which I get right about 80 percent of the time)
I am a Fighter, I fight if I have too-not want too

Creed ?
I don't believe in 90 percent of the creeds you recite in a Karate Class. They are adaptions of military creeds, which may not be 100 percent parralell with my life
Thanks
Todd

[Makalakumu]

I dont think you are going to find many "warriors" who are going to subscribe wholly to a relativistic system of ethics. If nobody is "wrong" then how are you going to fight them? So to a certain culture, killing a woman because she was raped is "right", starving/slaughtering entire tribes/races of people is "right"...who are we to step in and say they were worng? Cannibalism, as practiced today in small tribes in obscure locations is different from an entire "modern" nation starting to practice it.

The Nazis thought they were right.

That whole line of thinking may be good for historians as far as making "judgments" about historic actions, but leaves us no course of action in the present time.
There is some truth to this. When one learns the "warrior arts" one is learning how to fight. The question of when and what are ethical questions and they are the questions that separate those who are warriors and those who just go through the motions or "emulate" as you have put it above.

[Tgace]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider. The tactics used by a large body of soliders are different then the tactics/strategies used by a individual, especially when that individual is not part of or looking to reestablish himself as part of a larger unit.

Then there is need(s) as a civilian martial artist for lethal techniques? Is there a need for control techniques. repeat question for everything in between. What percentage of restraint, counter offensive and kill techniques need to be taught- on a battlefield there is probably very little need for a wristlock.
Well...not really disagreeing entirely with your point, but warfare these days isnt large mobs of guys standing shoulder to shoulder with shields, or barren "no mans lands" swept by machine gun fire anymore. The prevalance of Urban/close combat situations, insurgency operations, peacekeeping and "Operations Other Than War" present many various situations where less than total destruction could be called for. For example where protesters or "terror suspects" may have to be taken into custody vs. being pulverized by automatic weapons fire.

[ginshun]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.

Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.


Unless you are willing to give your life for no other reason then the country you serve tells you too, and you take that as your full time occupation, you're not a warrior.

You might be a leader, a fighter, a activist or any other number of things.
You are describing a soldier, not a warrior. There is a distinction, to me at least. A soldier does what he does based on orders from somebody, while a warrior does what he does based on his own personal convictions. This is not to say that one person cannot encompass both ideas, but that is not always the case. A warrior is a much more personal idea system in my mind.

[Tgace]

You are describing a soldier, not a warrior. There is a distinction, to me at least. A soldier does what he does based on orders from somebody, while a warrior does what he does based on his own personal convictions. This is not to say that one person cannot encompass both ideas, but that is not always the case. A warrior is a much more personal idea system in my mind.Not traditionally. Samurai, Knights, Vikings etc. all fought when their Lords/Chieftans/Shoguns etc. told them to. The "lone warrior" thing is a fantasy myth IMO.

[Andrew Green]

From my perspective, training in a martial art trains one in the arts of the warrior. Some may disagree with this assessment depending on the art, but that is just a lineage argument. As in, "can you tie your art to some famous warrior?"

Most martial arts systems don't have ties to the military at all. None of the "big" ones do. Kung-Fu was buhdist monks, Karate was Civillian, TKD/TSD comes from karate and is also civillian.

Koryu arts perhaps can tie in. But not much else...

[Tgace]

Heres another thread I posted a LONG time ago with relevance to this issue...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14172&highlight=warrior

[ginshun]

Not traditionally. Samurai, Knights, Vikings etc. all fought when their Lords/Chieftans/Shoguns etc. told them to. The "lone warrior" thing is a fantasy myth IMO.
I guess that I would argue that Samurai, Knights, and Vikings were all soldiers.
On an individual basis they may have been warriors as well, but were soldiers first and formost.

A soldier isn't neccessarily a warrior, and a warrior isn't neccessarily a soldier.

It really is semantics I suppose.

To me soldier is a very external distinction. You follow orders, you are part of an army, you fight who you are told to fight.

A warrior is more on an internal distinction. Not my words, but ones I believe:

"A warrior is a clear thinker and clear looker who engages the challenges of the world and strives to master the natural internal battles of everyday life. A warrior is formost at war with ignorance and personal weakness."

That is how I like to think of "warrior".

[Tgace]

By the actual definition of the word, (im paraphrasing here) a Warrior was a "soldier by class" so to speak. Samurai, Knights were born "warriors" and were a social class. Even tribal "warriors" were just the men of the tribe that were expected to fight (even they had Chiefs). When the farmers, artisans etc. were enlisted, trained and payed to fight was when Soldiers came about.

A lot of the stuff you see today (like the stuff expressed in your quote) is modern mysticism applied to "warriorship" that, IMO wasnt really a concern to the men who were "doing it" when they were warriors.

[ginshun]

Maybe it wasn't a consern in the past, I don't really know.

The traditional deffinition of warrior from 700 years ago is probably different than the one I choose to believe/follow today.

So be it.

[Tgace]

True...I just think that "Warrior", as a term, is being misused today as a self esteem/self worth booster. We all can approach life "as warriors" if we like, but to go around believing we "are warriors" is a different matter.

[Makalakumu]

True...I just think that "Warrior", as a term, is being misused today as a self esteem/self worth booster. We all can approach life "as warriors" if we like, but to go around believing we "are warriors" is a different matter.
Maybe we all just approach life "as warriors" only some do it to a degree more then others? For you, it seems as if there is a line one crosses and then one is a "warrior". Am I incorrect in this assessment? If not, what would that line be?

[Tgace]

Well, as I stated before. When someone is out "in the field" putting their lives on the line... it is a large step into "being a Warrior". If you read that cross link I posted to the "Soldier vs. Warrior" thread you will find a more rounded explination. There is a further distinction between a Soldier (who "puts it on the line" too) and a Warrior. Its a combination of mindset, lifestyle, dedication to "craft" and service as I see it.

[Tgace]

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol2/no2/pdf/31-38_e.pdf

This guy doesn't like the term "Warrior" at all. I must say there is much in this essay that I agree with too. However I wouldnt go so far as to say that we cant reclassify the term for modern application.




Michael Ignatieff believes in the value of soldiers. “However paradoxical it may sound,” he writes, “the … armies of the nation-state remain the only viable institutions we have ever developed with the capacity to control and channel large-scale human violence.”41 John Keegan states: “A world without armies — disciplined, obedient, and law-abiding armies — would be uninhabitable, and without their existence mankind would have to reconcile itself either to life at a primitive level … or to lawless chaos of masses warring, Hobbesian fashion, all against all.’ ”42 What the Canadian and American militaries have yet to realize is that warriors (however they qualify the term) have no place in these armies; indeed, they are anathema. In the end, only soldiers are society’s true defenders. Warriors have too personal a stake in chaos and war — a fact intimated by the truism that no real warrior wants to die in bed.

[The Kai]

One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
That's the offical definition. I guess my take on it warrior, war arts, =solider.

Martial arts = Civilian defensive systems

Why is there the need for ma'ers to get into the whole warrior thing? It becomes a new age mantra

BTW T-gace an excellent link. I think that the warrior has been romantised. The spartans are held up is such a rosy light, yet look into thier culture. They were not warrior/poets by any means!!

[Tgace]

BTW T-gace an excellent link. I think that the warrior has been romantised. The spartans are held up is such a rosy light, yet look into thier culture. They were not warrior/poets by any means!!Thnx..and you are right, people have vastly romanticized the term. However, like I said, while the author stated a lot of stuff that I agree with (and he obviously has the "regular Army" disdain for special forces units) , I really dont believe soldiers thinking of themselves as "warriors" for a little "esprit de corp" is a big deal. They arent really looking to emulate traditional concepts of the term nor are they looking to institute a social class. If it makes them better at their jobs and has a positive end result, more power to them.

[rupton]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question
That's discipline, not warrior. Can warriors be undisciplined? I think that without discipline and self-discipline one can not be a warrior, so they are certainly linked. But instant willing obedience to orders does not a warrior make. I use a lot of real examples from my time in the Marine Corps. I knew a lot of people who followed orders that I would not consider warriors .



and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.
Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.

Well let's analyze that statement a little more because I think it's a non sequitor to state that a civilian can't be a warrior using your definition above (not the following orders one, the second quote) As a civilian I would still certainly kill or die for my country. I would also like to think I would die for MY Lord (Jesus) but I know that isn't what you meant by lord. So let's replace lord (which, yes, is outdated) with other things

-principles
-family
-law and order
-justice
-freedom
-non oppression

the list could go on, but the point is I would kill or die for all these things (a little dramatic, yes) so does this make me a warrior? I don't know I don't lay claim to that title myself, I never did even when I was an infantryman and it probably applied. I just want to offer a different point of view.

[rupton]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider. That's a good point. I don't think that a lot of practioners realize that most "martial" arts are not martial at all. The majority of them were civilian and never originally a part of the military. So this kind of casts a whole negative light on "warrior" vis-a-vis military use. No?


I just saw that Andrew mentioned practically the same thing already about martial, sorry I missed it Andrew

[The Kai]

Willing to die for your king or country or cause. That kind of a theortical test of warrior ship. Not too many average joes are goning to face that predicamant.

Living your life making your own choices is in some way anti-warriorship. After all Warriors were reflections of the culture around them, and products of thier cultures military elite, the image of the warrior poet is a little hinky.

[Bester]

This was an earlier thread that's kinda related I think. Worth a look.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9121

[Makalakumu]

I'm not a big fan of the term "warrior". I wouldn't consider myself one...there is just too much mythical baggage for my tastes and I just don't need to fan my own ego like that.

However, I think that there is a system of ethics at work in the term "warrior" that martial artists try to emulate. Do these ethics reflect the actuality of what a "warrior" is? I'm not sure they do. What do they reflect then? What is the root of this ethical system?

[KyleShort]

From my perspective, a Warrior has to "put it on the line for something". There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.

Every animal on the planet will fight to protect themselves when pressed. Dosent make them "warriors" in my view. Fewer will go towards the danger out of a sense of duty or service to their fellows or their ideals.


Perfect.

[The Kai]

IMHO most school creeds are adaptations of military creed and thus are concerned with obedience and unquestioning loyality to the cause. Student are individuals that train each for there own reasons

[Karushi]

Your ethics mean nothing when that first bullet flies over your head. All of that crap goes out the window and it comes down to kill or be killed.

[Tgace]

What MOS were you?

[Karushi]

Mos?

[Tgace]

Military Occupational Speciality....judging from your combat experience I assumed you were military.

[Karushi]

Nope, I'm not old enough for the military. But now that I think of it, not so much when the bullets are flying but more when you're staring down the barrel it is hard to think of "what Jesus would do" so ethics are not a factor.

[Tgace]

What experience/knowledge do you base that on kid?

[rupton]

Your ethics mean nothing when that first bullet flies over your head. All of that crap goes out the window and it comes down to kill or be killed.
Well, speaking as someone who has had live fire over their head (even if by accident, but that's a different story :-) )I can tell you that you don't think a whole lot of anything, let alone ethics, morality or even kill or be killed. You don't think a whole lot of anything except, oh **** how do I make myself small enough to fit under that rock over there :-) I would like to hear your thoughts on what YOU did when "bullet flies over your head."

[rupton]

Nope, I'm not old enough for the military. But now that I think of it, not so much when the bullets are flying but more when you're staring down the barrel it is hard to think of "what Jesus would do" so ethics are not a factor.
Well, then disregard my last post to you then, sheesh, not even old enough for the military and making statements like that ;-)

[Makalakumu]

When one is in a situation where one can say "I'm probably going to die out here" and then one continues to will themselves to action because of their duty or service...that is a powerful ethic. If it just went away as soon as the danger started, then one couldn't will themselves to continue.

In 1997 they had what is called a 500 year flood in the Red River Valley of MN. The water had risen 40 feet above flood stage and was still rising. Voluteers, including myself, stood on the levees sandbagging, even after they began to cravasse. If the levee broke under anyone's feet, it was probably instant death. Yet, every minute the flood waters stayed back was an extra minute that gave East Grand Forks time to evacuate. The levees broke that day and the city was flooded. Yet, I think that ethic at least saved some lives.

I wouldn't be so quick to trivialize the power of ethics...

[The Kai]

I think it is the marginization of personal ethics that messes us up. The company we work for is dumping toxic waste, well i just work here I don't write policy. The church priest is molesting my neightbor's kid, well, for the greater good I'll shut up about it.


Will you do what you say you will??
Do you know the difference between right and wrong?
I have no military background so Personally if a bullet flies over my head i think "How will i get that out my shorts??"

[Cryozombie]

The Warrior Creed
by Robert L. Humphrey
(Iwo Jima Marine &
Bujinkan 10th Dan)

Wherever I go,
everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.

Wherever I am,
anyone in need has a friend.

Whenever I return home,
everyone is happy I am there.

"It's a better life!"

[Makalakumu]

I thought of a new poll to get at some of the ideas I was trying to get at...


Check this thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25274)out.

[ginshun]

The Warrior Creed
by Robert L. Humphrey
(Iwo Jima Marine &
Bujinkan 10th Dan)

Wherever I go,
everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.

Wherever I am,
anyone in need has a friend.

Whenever I return home,
everyone is happy I am there.

"It's a better life!"

I was thinking of posting that. I like it. That is part of what my idea of a warrior comes from.

[Karushi]

What experience/knowledge do you base that on kid?
Having a semi-automatic, 9mm pistol shoved in my face.

[shesulsa]

Having a semi-automatic, 9mm pistol shoved in my face.
Really? See, I've been on the business end of a gun myself and the very first thing I was aware of was my faith in God.

[Tgace]

Hmmm...some youngster who in his first few posts is asking about if he should fight some other kid for "possession" of his girlfriend now offering his expert advice regarding "life under the gun"....theres been a rash of wierd whitebelt posters here lately.

My ignore button trigger finger is itchin.

[shesulsa]

... yeah, something's rotten in Denmark ...

[Tgace]

Back on track now...

What is it about being a "Warrior" that attracts so many (mostly) guys? You see it used in the military, LE and emergency responder circles as well as sports. When did it become not enough to be proud of the title "Soldier", "Officer", and so on? Is it the whole "individualism" thing? Or is it a legitimate title to use in our times to define say, a soldier who "lives and breathes the profession" vs. a kid who just enlisted for the college money, does what he has to to get by, and gets out at the first opportunity? Or the Cop who studies law, pays for his own firearms training and studies MA all to become better at his profession vs. the "ticket puncher" who is just counting the days till retirement.

Is there a need in todays society for this sort of title differentiation? Is it just worthless ego boosting or a valuable "morale booster"?

[The Kai]

It is an attractive term to use. One envisions a knowledgable, powerfull individual. Under the New Age redefinition the Warrior now is autonamas (sp?), and outside of society pull (which is of course B.S.)

Here is my experience with the misnomer that is warrior. My Ex Wife was into pharmaceutical sales. So one night I am at a dinner function with the Dr's. Floating through the conversation, I am here of the "Warrior Weekend". "Wow", I thought cuz I did'nt expect to hear of hard core training amongst this cliche. What I found out was totally expensive (beyond what most Martial Arts types would even consider paying)
Hardships include:
Giving up cell phone
giving up pager

Highlights included of course the obligatory Drum Circle
Not my idea of a warrior, but a lot of fat, seeking manly validation Dr's pay thru the nose
How would they compare with the Warriors of today or yesterday?
I think most people who ascribe to the New Age definition of a Warrior would be a tad surprised if they could meet thier "Idols"

[Tgace]

True...at least the athlete "warriors" learn more of their capabilities and limitations through the crucible of physical training, pushing their physical and emotional limits and pain. The classical standards, minus killing and dying.

[The Kai]

Is'nt that the definition of a athlete??

[Tgace]

True. In the classic model, athleticism and "martialism" are closely related (the Greek model). Im of the opinion that those who fancy themselves as following "warrior ways" should be out there doing more than just MA in the athleticism vein. Running, lifting, climbing, some sort of physical activity that pushes ones limits to the point where you want to stop but can make yourself continue.

[Karushi]

Hmmm...some youngster who in his first few posts is asking about if he should fight some other kid for "possession" of his girlfriend now offering his expert advice regarding "life under the gun"....theres been a rash of wierd whitebelt posters here lately.

My ignore button trigger finger is itchin.
Thank you for insulting me again... Do you get off on it?

[Tgace]

Bubye now...bye bye.

Ever hear of the word "introspection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection)"?

[Karushi]

Yes you should think about it sometime, look at yourself.

Ever hear of the word, "hypocrite"?

[Bester]

Having a semi-automatic, 9mm pistol shoved in my face.
Sucks eh?
My first reaction to it was along the lines of "don't let me piss myself". Then I wondered who would feed my dog. Then I wondered if I would feel it, considering in my case, it was pressed against my ribs and would have at best shattered my spine and blasted a hole through a lung. Then I wet myself. The worse part was standing there, pants soaked, wondering if it was safe to move yet after the SOB left.

No macho here. It scared the piss outta me.

[Bester]

Yes you should think about it sometime, look at yourself.

Ever hear of the word, "hypocrite"?
Ever heard about "respect for ones elders"?

The guy your talking smack to is a cop. He's most likely faced worse situations than you can dream of. I don't happen to like him, but I will give him serious props for doing a job I couldn't do. You might stop moving the fingers and open the mind a bit more. The discussion is on "Warrior Ethics", and I don't know anyone in our society today more worthy of being called a "Warrior" than those men and women in uniform (police, military, even fire/rescue) who face danger every day.

[Karushi]

Ever heard about "respect for ones elders"?

The guy your talking smack to is a cop. He's most likely faced worse situations than you can dream of. I don't happen to like him, but I will give him serious props for doing a job I couldn't do. You might stop moving the fingers and open the mind a bit more. The discussion is on "Warrior Ethics", and I don't know anyone in our society today more worthy of being called a "Warrior" than those men and women in uniform (police, military, even fire/rescue) who face danger every day.
Yes I realize this man is a cop. And I also give him the respect that he is putting his life on the line daily, but in retrospect he has done nothing but insult me since I got here and has called me a child and I find calling someone names is rather childish.

[Tgace]

When did calling a child...a child..become "name calling"?

BTW Bester...:asian:

And besides the words we had on the Bram thread Ive never had an issue with anything else Ive seen from you on ths board....Ive had worse with other people here and am currently on "friendly terms" with most of them. As most of us only know each other based on words on a screen, I try not to hold too big of a grudge based on it. What happens in "real life"...thats a different story.

The way I see it...In a martial arts forum, talking about the stuff we do, a little verbal roughhousing should be nothing to be afraid of. If we cant shake hands afterwards, at least we can still give a "nod" to each other every once and a while.

[The Kai]

Yes you should think about it sometime, look at yourself.

Ever hear of the word, "hypocrite"?
Ever heard of the word "sudiferious" Hmm?
Seriously Pup, don't say stupid **** and you won't be called stupid. T-gace is a cop. In some ways he is a target ever day. While you're dancing your way out of fights, he is called in to go where most people would not.

First rule of Warrior Ethos
1.) Keep your mouth shut, ears open

[Tgace]

Hell..I could care less about personal "respect". Im used to being called all sorts of things ;). All I can hope for is that the kid follows The Kai's first rule. Maybe he will actually learn something here instead of trying to "teach" us a few things.

[MJS]

Guys-

I'd just like to say 2 things.


1- :feedtroll

2- Lets get back to the main topic.

Oh...one more thing:

:feedtroll


Mike :ultracool

[MJS]

Yes I realize this man is a cop. And I also give him the respect that he is putting his life on the line daily, but in retrospect he has done nothing but insult me since I got here and has called me a child and I find calling someone names is rather childish.

There is an ignore feature on everyones profile. Feel free to use it if you dont want to hear from someone!!!!

Mike

[Tgace]

The Art of War (http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm)

The Book of 5 Rings (http://www.samurai.com/5rings/)

The Hagakure (http://split-kitty.com/misc/hagakure/)

On War (http://print.google.com/print?id=Nvm25YlDOeEC&pg=101&lpg=101&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3D%2522On%2Bwar%2522%26oi%3Dprint&sig=rmT5ep_o9_9t_G0UNaG-yCAsXZY)

Bushidoshoshinshu (http://fowler.winterstorm.org/texts/Budoshoshinshu/)

[Tgace]

Those are some of the "classics" that influenced various "Warrior Philosophies".....I note that there was much more concern about honor, "face", courage in the face of death vs. any real concern over when or if force should be used. What do you think is the place of these various writings in our modern definition?

[rupton]

Those are some of the "classics" that influenced various "Warrior Philosophies".....I note that there was much more concern about honor, "face", courage in the face of death vs. any real concern over when or if force should be used. What do you think is the place of these various writings in our modern definition?
Hmmm, that's a really good question. I admit that I am a little myopic in my own views of bushido and how they apply to me personally. But I will say back in the mid-nineties I remember seeing titles like "The Art of War" and "The Book of Five Rings" remade with emphases on and the context of the business world. I thought that was very interesting :-) I also remember in the late eighties and early nineties there was that whole "Business is war" mentality which I think spawned a lot of works like I mentioned above. So maybe the answer lies there? Seriously though I do think a lot of these ideas, while some are outdated, certainly have relevance in this day and age to the average citizen, militant or not.