Is ground and pound ethical?

[drop bear]

Right. I don't think taking lives, or even intentionally injuring people, is ever ethical. And yet, I was in the military and prepared to take lives, if necessary. It's an interesting ethical conundrum, and something I find pretty interesting. But when folks are cavalier about killing or injuring other folks, that's concerning to me.

That is quite often justified ideologically. So killing is technically good because.....

Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.

I tried to steer clear of that sort of thing with my own morality because it seems dishonest. Even if it was comfortable.

I also notice people are suggesting morality is about consequence. So something is bad because I might get in trouble.

Which again is very ideological.

 

[Jimmythebull]

Right. I don't think taking lives, or even intentionally injuring people, is ever ethical. And yet, I was in the military and prepared to take lives, if necessary. It's an interesting ethical conundrum, and something I find pretty interesting. But when folks are cavalier about killing or injuring other folks, that's concerning to me.

so you were never a front line soldier.

 

[Jimmythebull]

That is quite often justified ideologically. So killing is technically good because.....

Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.

I tried to steer clear of that sort of thing with my own morality because it seems dishonest. Even if it was comfortable.

I also notice people are suggesting morality is about consequence. So something is bad because I might get in trouble.

Which again is very ideological.

I am honestly trying to choose my words here.. maybe i was never so educated as you , just more experienced.

 

[Steve]

so you were never a front line soldier.

Nope. Not a combat troop. I was an ammo troop in the Air Force. My brother was the combat soldier. He enlisted a year before me, and volunteered for airborne infantry. The physical and emotional toll it took on him was significant. I work with a lot of combat vets in my job. I mean, the USA has been at war for over 2 decades now so there are a lot of vets out there. From what I've seen, there has been a toll taken on pretty much all of them.

 

[Jimmythebull]

Nope. Not a combat troop. I was an ammo troop in the Air Force. My brother was the combat soldier. He enlisted a year before me, and volunteered for airborne infantry. The physical and emotional toll it took on him was significant. I work with a lot of combat vets in my job. I mean, the USA has been at war for over 2 decades now so there are a lot of vets out there. From what I've seen, there has been a toll taken on pretty much all of them.

I worked with the Americans on a few occasions

 

[drop bear]

I am honestly trying to choose my words here.. maybe i was never so educated as you , just more experienced.

Mabye. Who knows?

 

[Jared Traveler]

Steve those comments were all direct responses to your comments. My use of the law was not willy-nilly in any way. It was used to articulate that your thoughts on the subject regarding the morality of using force are far from even extreme liberal minds, that actually have the responsibility of determining what the law considers morally right. In the form of justifiable.

I think you're the one making some crazy assumptions now. It's okay, though. I better understand what you're interested in talking about now, and it makes sense.

Regarding the above comment, if you think my comments regarding someone "green lighting an attack" because they display compliant behavior in a potentially violent confrontation is a wild assumption, you simply aren't knowledgeable on the subject.

No matter how much we discuss it, I feel you are going to retain your way of thinking on this. I feel like you have some ingrained thinking and bias on some of these subjects and that fine. I am certainly not responsible for changing your mind on any of it.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Which is the same ideologically of justifying morality with legality.

I tried to steer clear of that sort of thing with my own morality because it seems dishonest. Even if it was comfortable.

I also notice people are suggesting morality is about consequence. So something is bad because I might get in trouble.

Which again is very ideological.

Who is doing this?

 

[Steve]

Steve those comments were all direct responses to your comments. My use of the law was not willy-nilly in any way. It was used to articulate that your thoughts on the subject regarding the morality of using force are far from even extreme liberal minds, that actually have the responsibility of determining what the law considers morally right. In the form of justifiable.

Regarding the above comment, if you think my comments regarding someone "green lighting an attack" because they display compliant behavior in a potentially violent confrontation is a wild assumption, you simply aren't knowledgeable on the subject.

No matter how much we discuss it, I feel you are going to retain your way of thinking on this. I feel like you have some ingrained thinking and bias on some of these subjects and that fine. I am certainly not responsible for changing your mind on any of it.

Jared I think that you’re misunderstanding me, and I’m honestly not sure how or why. But it seems like you’re getting a little frustrated. When I say ethics, morality, and legality aren’t synonymous, I’m not speaking metaphorically.

I’ll say it as plainly as I can. Something that is legal does not necessarily equal something that is moral. So when you use the one as evidence of the other, it doesn’t work. And you’re flipping back and forth a lot. Willy nilly, one might say.

You’re talking about what is legal, and that’s great. It’s a very good topic. My suggestion is that you not muddy the waters with ethics and morals. Those are entirely different discussions, and it doesn’t seem like you’re all that interested in understanding why.

You ask for opinions, and then get squirrelly at the idea someone disagrees with you. I mean, no matter how much we discuss this, I’m getting the distinct impression you are going to retain your way of thinking. But if you aren’t interested in diverse opinions, I recommend you stop asking for them, Jared.

 

[Steve]

Who is doing this?

okay. You did it again. Unintentionally very funny.

 

[Jared Traveler]

okay. You did it again. Unintentionally very funny.

Okay Steve, you don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm spinning my wheels here. I'm bringing a lot of legit points that are falling on deaf ears.

 

[Steve]

Okay Steve, you don't get what I'm trying to say. I'm spinning my wheels here. I'm bringing a lot of legit points that are falling on deaf ears

You’re really good at irony. I think I get you better than you think. If it helps, I can tell you there’s no subtext to what I’m writing. It’s all very literal. You just seem to be having trouble differentiating between morality and legality. I guess that’s to be expected from someone with a LEO background.

Have a good evening and when you’re ready to listen a little yourself, I think we could have a great conversation.

 

[Jared Traveler]

You’re really good at irony. I think I get you better than you think. If it helps, I can tell you there’s no subtext to what I’m writing. It’s all very literal. You just seem to be having trouble differentiating between morality and legality. I guess that’s to be expected from someone with a LEO background.

Have a good evening and when you’re ready to listen a little yourself, I think we could have a great conversation.

Let me work on my listing skills. Your opinion is that there is irony in my words? That sense of irony comes from the fact that you believe I can't separate morality and the legal aspects of self-defense? You think I'm trying to make an argument that if it's legal then it's moral?

 

[Jared Traveler]

I also understand Steve that in the original post I included moral and legal questions. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of separating them, it just means I thought they were both important in determining the use of ground and pound as a tactic.

I you make a use of force decisions this includes both the legal aspect and a moral decision. We can discuss morals in a silo, and that's fine. But you don't make use of force decisions in a silo, not in the real world.

 

[Jared Traveler]

If Steve, for moral reasons you will never use ground and pound, the legal aspect doesn't apply to you. I can agree to that. But anyone who will use it under certain circumstances, must consider the legal and moral aspects together.

 

[Holmejr]

If someone is truly bent on murdering, then that person must be absolutely stopped. If by chance you get into an altercation with them, they must fully submit or die. It just is what it is. You pray that their loved ones somehow find wisdom and understanding in a such a terrible situation. Of course, there are people that equate all killing to murder. IMO, as “nice” as that seems, they have a confused moral compass.

 

[Steve]

Let me work on my listing skills. Your opinion is that there is irony in my words? That sense of irony comes from the fact that you believe I can't separate morality and the legal aspects of self-defense? You think I'm trying to make an argument that if it's legal then it's moral?

I also understand Steve that in the original post I included moral and legal questions. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of separating them, it just means I thought they were both important in determining the use of ground and pound as a tactic.

I you make a use of force decisions this includes both the legal aspect and a moral decision. We can discuss morals in a silo, and that's fine. But you don't make use of force decisions in a silo, not in the real world.

I think you’re getting a little mixed around here. The issue isn’t whether or not you can distinguish between morality and legality, it’s that you just aren’t doing it.

The problem with this is… well it’s confusing for one. But it’s also just not very helpful. Laws can be immoral. And things for which there is no law can be moral. People often must choose between legal and moral.

But this isn’t one of them. Ground and pound isn’t illegal. Just like a right hook isnt illegal. That is inconvenient to your premise, so you get conceptual and start bringing in morality. Which is cool. I like that topic.

But morality intersects with legality inconsistently. What I mean by that is, some laws are immoral on purpose where the goal is cruelty. Many are immoral because the goal or tactics are immoral. Laws motivated by greed for example.

At one time, slavery was the law of the land, which forced some folks to choose between morality and legality. Henry David Thoreau wrote all about civil disobedience. MLK, Gandhi… and today we have doctors in some states forced to choose between their Hippocratic oath and a law that prevents them from performing a life saving abortion.

If Steve, for moral reasons you will never use ground and pound, the legal aspect doesn't apply to you. I can agree to that. But anyone who will use it under certain circumstances, must consider the legal and moral aspects together.

Okay. So here’s the point. We are moral creatures only when we live by a set of values. Obeying the laws of the land is a moral value. Caring for others and service to the greater good are also moral values. So the discussion I thought we would have is when these values are in conflict. That’s interesting to me.

I really don’t like the idea of intentionally harming another person. But I might need to some day. In the same way a doctor might not like the idea of breaking the law and potentially being arrested for saving the life of a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her if left untreated. But they do it because it’s ethical.

And in a crisis, when you have to make a decision between two values, it’s useful to understand them.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think you’re getting a little mixed around here. The issue isn’t whether or not you can distinguish between morality and legality, it’s that you just aren’t doing it.

The problem with this is… well it’s confusing for one. But it’s also just not very helpful. Laws can be immoral. And things for which there is no law can be moral. People often must choose between legal and moral.

But this isn’t one of them. Ground and pound isn’t illegal. Just like a right hook isnt illegal. That is inconvenient to your premise, so you get conceptual and start bringing in morality. Which is cool. I like that topic.

But morality intersects with legality inconsistently. What I mean by that is, some laws are immoral on purpose where the goal is cruelty. Many are immoral because the goal or tactics are immoral. Laws motivated by greed for example.

At one time, slavery was the law of the land, which forced some folks to choose between morality and legality. Henry David Thoreau wrote all about civil disobedience. MLK, Gandhi… and today we have doctors in some states forced to choose between their Hippocratic oath and a law that prevents them from performing a life saving abortion.




Okay. So here’s the point. We are moral creatures only when we live by a set of values. Obeying the laws of the land is a moral value. Caring for others and service to the greater good are also moral values. So the discussion I thought we would have is when these values are in conflict. That’s interesting to me.

I really don’t like the idea of intentionally harming another person. But I might need to some day. In the same way a doctor might not like the idea of breaking the law and potentially being arrested for saving the life of a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her if left untreated. But they do it because it’s ethical.

And in a crisis, when you have to make a decision between two values, it’s useful to understand them.

I agree and have agreed with 90 percent of of what you are saying in this post. The majority of what you are countering me on, I was never arguing and have always agreed with.

 

[Steve]

I agree and have agreed with 90 percent of of what you are saying in this post. The majority of what you are countering me on, I was never arguing and have always agreed with.

Terrific. At one point You did say though that you think I’m on the far left fringe, so surely you can understand my confusion.

What is the 10% you don’t agree with? Or maybe, what is the point or points you think I’m misunderstanding?

Have you ever heard of the trolly dilemma? If so, do you think a legal analysis would be the same as an ethical analysis?

 

[Jared Traveler]

Terrific. At one point You did say though that you think I’m on the far left fringe, so surely you can understand my confusion.

What is the 10% you don’t agree with? Or maybe, what is the point or points you think I’m misunderstanding?

Have you ever heard of the trolly dilemma? If so, do you think a legal analysis would be the same as an ethical analysis?

I'm getting on a 24+ hour plane ride soon, so my communication will be on existent or spotty at best.

But let's start with what I 100 percent agree with. You should not base your morals on the law. Lots of immoral things have been legal in the past.

I myself have done things extremely illegal in certain places on the globe to help people that a gov didn't want helped. I have demonstrated this believe by taking massive risks. So I completely agree with that.

I was never suggesting you do something just because it is legal.