|
Debate 19: Licence to Kill
|
| ninja |
Posted on 10/31/2012 10:50:04
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
Inspired from watching the latest Bond Film, Skyfall. If you haven't seen it - pretty good movie, go watch!
Should spies have a licence to kill?
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Levi |
Posted on 10/31/2012 11:00:58
|
Wanker
Posts: 759
Joined: 24.11.11
|
If its really necessary, yeah.. I mean why would a marine be allowed to kill someone and a spy not?
Btw, do you mean a spy that serves for the army or a spy for FBI business lol
(I think the FBI does have a license to kill but you know what i mean, just those gentle spies in suits and stuff >.>)
Edited by Levi on 10/31/2012 12:44:02
 |
| |
|
|
| ZA BrickSquad |
Posted on 10/31/2012 11:15:52
|
ShawnPeezy
Posts: 5303
Joined: 12.05.11
|
We are not suppose to kill other humans...
It really depends on the mission. Aren't spies usually just to collect information (such as secret weapons, war techniques, etc.) from a country to return back to another country?
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 10/31/2012 11:19:35 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 10/31/2012 11:24:40
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
Levi wrote:
If its really necessary, yeah.. I mean why would a marine be allowed to kill someone and a spy not?
Btw, do you mean a spy that serves for the army or a spy for FBI business lol
(I think the FBI does have a license to kill but you know what i mean, just those gentle spies in suits and stuff >.> 
A spy for that individual's country's secret service. FBI/CIA/MI6 etc. Of course, we could consider double agents.
You also raise the question of whether marines should be allowed to kill - i.e. should we engage in warefare? However, consider the possibility of the spy's victim not being in the same situation - so not expecting to fight. Marines tend to fight other marines, so they both know that a possible outcome is death, and have accepted that as part of their career. A spy might target someone else.
ZA BrickSquad wrote:
We are not suppose to kill other humans...
It really depends on the mission. Aren't spies usually just to collect information (such as secret weapons, war techniques, etc.) from a country to return back to another country?
What if those humans are trying to kill others? Perhaps not even directly.
They may be just doing that. However, they might also find themselves in a position where it would be beneficial to their service to kill someone. Is this acceptable?
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| SpartanJaz |
Posted on 10/31/2012 14:53:11
|
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 13.08.12
|
Nobody should kill anyone unless in self-defence.
Even then, in order to avoid having to resort to self-defence in the first place, even the self-defence exception should be ignored because if nobody kills anyone, no violence is needed at all.
Unfortunately a lot of people still do kill. So it's up to who is defending themselves to decide whether to resort to self-defence or merely stay back and try to avoid dying in order to avoid causing more violence.
In the case of spies, it depends on the situation really. If a lot of people are in danger because of one person, the spy has a decision(Or the spy's manager). There are different risks. Giving the spy a license to kill means that the situation can be resolved quickly with harm to only one person(The one who wanted to cause harm to others). However, this may cause more violence from the friends of the spy's victim.
But then trying to avoid violence and solving the situation peacefully could bring risks of it's own. The victims of the person who the spy is assigned to deal with could end up dying because the spy didn't take extreme enough measures. OR the situation could be resolved peacefully. Unfortunately, either conclusion could play out.
In the case of the army though, nobody should be allowed to kill on a mass scale. So saying that spies should be allowed to kill because soldiers can doesn't make much sense to me as soldiers certainly shouldn't have licence to kill. They are not given all the details. They put risk not just on those they're assigned to kill but also innocents. And additionally, those they are assigned to kill have not been through court and are often large groups of soldiers. It's mass murder. In my opinion, it's totally immoral.
This is especially true in the case of common terrorist groups. A lot of terrorist groups have admitted to only being terrorists in fear of America taking over their homes. This is a real fear and frankly, in light of the attitude of past Presidents, is quite a valid fear. If American politicians negotiated contracts to promise never to touch the provinces that these terrorists are protecting, then the wars could be ended. No armies should have to deal with these issues. They're only escalating the issues and almost proving that America wants world power. The fact that America sends soldiers into Middle Eastern areas proves that they think they are responsible for provinces around the world. If America left well alone, there would be no issues.
So yeah, sorry if that's a little bit irrelevant, but just responding to those who think spies should have a license to kill just because soldiers do. They're entirely irrelevant to each other. Spies have to choose depending on the situation. Soldiers are forced to fight and are given a license to not just kill on a small scale, but on a mass scale. The morality of a spy who kills is subject to perception of the situation. The morality of a soldier is always the same.(In my opinion, sending soldiers to kill on a mass scale is extremely immoral) |
| |
|
|
| firefox |
Posted on 10/31/2012 14:58:09
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1530
Joined: 06.11.11
|
Countries have spies to protect the country.
Countries have army to protect the country.
Spies will need to kill in order to keep them safe and the country safe.
Same goes for the army. So spies should have a license to kill but only under certain circumstances such as self defense or a threat to themselves or one's country.
ME> Google Chrome > Mozilla Firefox >Internet Explorer
ZÅ~V Admin
 |
| |
|
|
| SpartanJaz |
Posted on 10/31/2012 16:26:21
|
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 13.08.12
|
firefox wrote:
Countries have spies to protect the country.
Countries have army to protect the country.
Spies will need to kill in order to keep them safe and the country safe.
Same goes for the army. So spies should have a license to kill but only under certain circumstances such as self defense or a threat to themselves or one's country.
The keeping the country safe argument is a bit dumb really. If the army didn't exist, I doubt that there would be many terrorists as they only exist because they fear the army. It's a difficult argument though as even then, there may still be a few terrorists who fight for selfish reasons such as money. And if there's no army to stop them, they could succeed in damaging country. |
| |
|
|
| Joshkl2013 |
Posted on 10/31/2012 17:53:53
|
Numpty
Posts: 1443
Joined: 26.05.12
|
by: [ZÅ]Jaz, Today 02:53 PM (#5)
Nobody should kill anyone unless in self-defence.
Even then, in order to avoid having to resort to self-defence in the first place, even the self-defence exception should be ignored because if nobody kills anyone, no violence is needed at all.
See, the thing is now you're getting into idealism. The fact is that the world is not an idealistic place, and people will attempt to harm or kill others. The thing about "self defense" makes sense, but think about this.
Say a spy is on a mission of national importance. If they are caught, they will be sent back (most spies have some sort of diplomatic immunity of some sort) but not killed. Their mission, though, will be compromised. Someone finds out about their mission (AND THE SPY IS NOT IN DANGER), and goes to tell someone. Would it be appropriate for the spy to kill that person?
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox
Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call
1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...
 |
| |
|
|
| SpartanJaz |
Posted on 10/31/2012 18:44:12
|
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 13.08.12
|
Joshkl2013 wrote:
by: [ZÅ]Jaz, Today 02:53 PM (#5)
Nobody should kill anyone unless in self-defence.
Even then, in order to avoid having to resort to self-defence in the first place, even the self-defence exception should be ignored because if nobody kills anyone, no violence is needed at all.
See, the thing is now you're getting into idealism. The fact is that the world is not an idealistic place, and people will attempt to harm or kill others. The thing about "self defense" makes sense, but think about this.
Say a spy is on a mission of national importance. If they are caught, they will be sent back (most spies have some sort of diplomatic immunity of some sort) but not killed. Their mission, though, will be compromised. Someone finds out about their mission (AND THE SPY IS NOT IN DANGER), and goes to tell someone. Would it be appropriate for the spy to kill that person?
Depends on the situation. If national importance means protecting politicians, then no, the spy shouldn't kill anyone. Politicians took their jobs knowing they might have to risk their lives for peace and the stability of society. (Obviously, most politicians don't have ideals like that though, so meh).
If national importance means protecting a mass of innocents and the only risk the spy knows about is the death of the one person he/she has to kill, then I suppose it would be appropriate for the spy to kill that person.
And yes, I'm getting into idealism. I did note that a lot of it's my opinion. I'm not really obsessively idealistic though. (I don't avoid violence altogether because I understand that it still exists. I never said that the world is an idealistic place. But then it could be if everyone made small steps like not deciding they have a licence to kill. Even vigilante killing is just causing more violence. The issue is it's a stalemate. If one side stops with the violence, the other side could easily just kill them). |
| |
|
|
| tim |
Posted on 11/05/2012 21:17:54
|
Member
Posts: 164
Joined: 09.10.11
|
Yes I think a spy should.
If a person has a reason to kill at their own discretion, than that person has truley rose to the ranks of a person capable of being responsible with that kind of power. In fact, being a spy is mainly espionage anyway, the only real reason a spy would ever have to actually "kill" someone is if the person they are killing is either 1) Going to compromise the entire mission, 2) Going to kill the spy, 3) To protect others.
Just the way I see it. Personally, if I was a spy I wouldn't go shooting everybody on sight just cause I have a license that says that I can. There are certain limitations from the standard rules of being a spy and human morality.
Edited by tim on 11/05/2012 21:18:33 |
| |
|
|
| ZA althor |
Posted on 11/06/2012 05:31:55
|
Wanker
Posts: 794
Joined: 07.03.11
|
well i suppose if you were to ask enemy spies very nicely to not kill, then you might be able to revoke a local spy's license. lets also not forget with population bursting, growth increasing yearly and people wanting no violence......id rather be shot then starve to death.
*in the fine print definition of being server active* ....{FC}[ZA]Althor, will no longer be server active |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 11/06/2012 13:51:10
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
tim wrote:
Yes I think a spy should.
If a person has a reason to kill at their own discretion, than that person has truley rose to the ranks of a person capable of being responsible with that kind of power. In fact, being a spy is mainly espionage anyway, the only real reason a spy would ever have to actually "kill" someone is if the person they are killing is either 1) Going to compromise the entire mission, 2) Going to kill the spy, 3) To protect others.
Just the way I see it. Personally, if I was a spy I wouldn't go shooting everybody on sight just cause I have a license that says that I can. There are certain limitations from the standard rules of being a spy and human morality.
I think it's questionable whether:
- anyone should have that 'responsibility' or 'power'.
- anyone could have that 'responsibility' or 'power', entailing knowing all of the consequences as a result of killing or not killing.
- it is right for the spy to kill just to save their mission or their own life, can the value of one life be compared to another?
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
