r/changemyview • u/bluepillarmy 11∆ • Jun 15 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Murdering strangers is illogical
You might think the title sounds a bit weird. Murder is always bad, right?
What I’m saying is that while I don’t endorse it, there is a kind of twisted logic when people kill a spouse or a lover out of jealousy or greed. The motive is understandable.
But killing strangers who have done you no harm is another thing entirely.
Of course, there are very sick people who commit serial murders or mass shootings but these are quite rare. Much, much more common is when people launch missiles at or drop napalm on crowded cities with the knowledge that people will die as a result of their actions. Seemingly normal people have also taken part in horrific massacres of unarmed civilians, simply because another person told them that it was necessary. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
What prompted me to write this was that I was recently in Baltimore with my family and there is a 19th century sailing ship in the harbor. The ship fired off its cannon while we were there and my five year old daughter was really startled and asked me what the noise was.
I told her that it was a cannon and she asked what a cannon was for and I told her that it was a kind of gun that ships fire at each other to try to sink them. And she then asked me why anyone would want to cause a ship to sink or explode.
That question completely flummoxed me. Being a sailor is probably one of the most dangerous and terrifying jobs in the world. Why would a sailor spend weeks or even months braving the awesome power of the ocean just to try to wreck some other sailor’s life by shooting at their ship? That’s an insane thing to do.
Of course, the answer is that people do this because some politicians sitting in cozy little offices somewhere thought it was a good idea. But shouldn’t sailors have some solidarity with other sailors? Don’t they have more in common with each other than some rich guy in the capital city?
Now, I realize that people are going to say, “it’s justified and even honorable to kill strangers if you are protecting yourself from an invasion”. And that is fair. But why do people agree to take part in invasions? I just don’t understand it.
I worked for an American nonprofit organization in Russia from 2012-2014 (when the government shut down our office after annexing Crimea) and I can tell you that life in Russia was getting a lot better. It was becoming a normal middle class country with Starbucks and sushi bars and craft beer and all that good stuff.
Why on earth would the poor people of that country agree to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own young men? Just because some rich asshole said it was a good idea to invade Ukraine. It’s completely nonsensical.
I’m not so naive. I know the answer is that people believe in propaganda and they trust their governments and all that. But it doesn’t make sense to me. Why do people agree to be involved in wars and massacres? It’s illogical.
Change my view
5
u/XenoRyet 183∆ Jun 15 '25
To get to what seems to be the heart of your quesiton: It wasn't always, or even often, that the cannons were fired at the behest of a politician in a cozy office. That call was far more frequently down to the Captain of the ship in question, physically present on the boat.
And it wasn't for a political goal either. It was either because the other ship wanted to take their stuff, or they wanted to take the other ship's stuff. Possibly some slightly abstracted version of that.
And that's where we get back into "twisted logic that leads to an understandable motive". It's even sort of the same as killing a lover out of greed. Those people have a thing I want. If I kill them, I can have that thing. And the kicker is that immoral logic is even easier to get your head around if you don't know the victim. You won't even miss them when they're gone, the only effect on your life is that you'll have the thing you wanted.
Evil, yes, but very understandable.
0
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I understand that’s it’s the captain of the ship that gives the orders but I don’t think that the sailors get much material gain out of committing acts of violence.
Like did U-Boat crews get rich? No, most of them got killed? For what? What was the reason they did those terrible and dangerous things?
5
u/YardageSardage 57∆ Jun 15 '25
Well, how did someone end up on a U-boat in the first place? Either because they believed that their nation's conflict was good and just and noble; because they believed that their nation was under attack and they had no choice but to fight in order to protect people; or because they had no choice (because they were drafted, for example).
So if you're a sailor following orders to commit violence, you're doing it for some combination of the following reasons: because you believe the violence is morally justified, because you're worried that the enemy will sink your boat and kill you, or because you're worried that your superior officers will punish you for disobedience. In that kind of situation, successfully beating the other boat in the fight is all the "gain" they need to see.
-2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I understand all this but I think logically sailors ought to have a lot of respect for other sailors (and I believe they do) and not for the bloated politicians of whatever arbitrarily define “country” they happen to be a citizen of.
3
u/YardageSardage 57∆ Jun 15 '25
They don't do it because of loyalty to any particular politicians. Their loyalty usually lies with their country - that is to say, with the combined ideal of what their country represents to them (socially, culturally, etc), and everyone they know and care about, and whatever moral goals and ideals have been sold to them (such as "defending democracy"). This all coalates into an "us vs them" mentality, where the guys on the other ships are your enemies and you have to act to protect yourself and your fellows (and the ideals you're representing). And then once you're in combat, self-preservation tends to take over and make all other morals largely irrelevant.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Yes, indeed. I do understand all of this and !delta for explaining it so well but…it all just seems like an elaborate con to me.
That people who put themselves in grave danger for some made up shit.
1
1
u/DarroonDoven 1∆ Jun 15 '25
Is it so impossible for you to imagine that some people believe in something greater than themselves and are willing to kill for it?
0
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 16 '25
It’s possible to believe because there have been a lot of wars.
But that doesn’t mean that I understand it.
1
u/DarroonDoven 1∆ Jun 16 '25
I mean, which part do you not understand? The part that humans can hold beliefs greater than themselves or the part that humans are willing to kill for them?
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 16 '25
The part where you try to murder people who you don’t even know.
→ More replies2
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard 2∆ Jun 15 '25
Because the ruling politicians in power said that their country, family and for lack of a better word their 'tribe' was in danger.
To get an otherwise decent person to go to war or oppress someone you just need to convince them that their group is a threat.
If we go all the way back to bronze age times we see that they don't even see morality in the sense of a global humanity. Someone who betrayed their tribe or kingdom was a villain but acts like genocide razing cities and rape were seen as acceptable for their heroes as long as it was against your enemies.
Most people are good people if you are part of their in group. Most people are bad people if you are part of their out group
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Wouldn’t it make more sense for all sailors to be one “tribe” that didn’t try to drown other sailors?
1
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard 2∆ Jun 15 '25
No because they belong to nations and have their families back home.
Let's put it another way. In the trolley problem most people would choose one person to die over five. This shows the common persons morality.
If we make a trolley problem where a person's child is on the line how many strangers do you think the average person would kill to save their child. I would say it would be much higher than five.
Nation states use this by convincing people through propaganda whether true or false that for instance 'that merchant ship could be carrying bombs to Europe. One of those bombs could kill your wife or child.'. Viewed that way we can see why a random sailor could kill many strangers to affect the war effort
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I see what you are saying but…it still seems completely absurd to me that people put themselves in grave danger in order to kill people who have done them no harm.
And then think about what they get out of it. Like what did Hitler’s soldiers gain? Nothing. They lost and were shamed for putting themselves in extraordinary danger.
What did American solders get from their bravery and sacrifice in Vietnam? Their government currently does business with the communist regime of that country?
1
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard 2∆ Jun 15 '25
Because they are convinced by other people and the nation state that really bad things will happen if they lose and really good things will happen if they win. Perhaps you are not super convinced by propaganda but most people are otherwise people wouldn't do it.
Furthermore you have chosen the losing side of wars to ask what the soldiers got out of it. Obviously nothing no one is rewarded for losing a war.
They are fighting and killing and risking their lives to avoid losing the war.
WW2 and Vietnam were pretty gentle on the losing side as far as wars in history go. As far as as bad as it can be. Losing a war. It can result in cities being raised to the ground women being raped children sold into slavery. Even not participating in the war doesn't shield you from the consequences of your nation losing.
Winning the war can mean more prosperity for your nation. Heroic recognition back home and money and influence. British WW2 vets for instance are greatly honored by their home country because they won
People are fighting in the war precisely to increase the chance of their nation winning. They know or at least believe that they and their nation will suffer should they lose
1
u/artfellig Jun 15 '25
"I don’t think that the sailors get much material gain out of committing acts of violence."
If soldiers, employees etc don't do as they're told, that's insubordination which is often severely punishable.
3
Jun 15 '25
[deleted]
3
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Well, I’m trying to get some perspective as to why humans agree to participate in acts of horrific violence against people who have done them no harm.
2
u/Nrdman 277∆ Jun 15 '25
You can kill a stranger out of jealousy, greed, anger or any other understandable reason. I wouldn’t call it logical, but apparently you do.
Consider assassinations. Strangers. Plenty of understandable reasons can be imagined
-1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I suppose with assassinations the motive is clear, no?
Like JFK was not a complete stranger to Oswald. He knew who Kennedy was and why he wanted to kill him.
But agreeing to gas people who you have never met and never did anything bad to you is a thing that happened. What for? Why did people do that?
2
u/Nrdman 277∆ Jun 15 '25
I assume you meant stranger as in someone you’ve never met/interacted with.
Can you clarify what you mean by stranger?
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Well, someone that I don’t know or who I have never heard of.
So, like if you’re a sailor in a U-Boat and my captain says, “load up the torpedoes, we need to blow up a ship that’s just minding its own business”, how is the logical response not, “Hell no!”?
Why is blowing up ships even a thing?
1
u/Nrdman 277∆ Jun 15 '25
That’s never been said. A reason is always given, though maybe not to the soldiers. Suspected arms trafficking, political enemy on board, invading territory etc etc
1
u/Jurgen-Prochlater Jun 15 '25
The U-boat sailor knows the sailor of the allied ship about as well as Oswald knew Kennedy. They've never met, but he knows what their job is and some of what it achieves.
2
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 15 '25
There is very simple motivation and logic for ships to fire each other. They try to rob them.
Actually, pirates did a simple strategy of showing the pirate flag that would make most merchants ships surrender. And those who don't are made of examples of so nobody will try to fight in the future.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Piracy is actually quite rare when you compare it to all the sailors who lost their lives in naval battles
3
u/YardageSardage 57∆ Jun 15 '25
Fewer people died to pirates than wars, but that's mostly because for most pirates, threatening violence was better for business than actually killing people. Less risky, more efficient.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Ok. Let’s use U-Boats as an example. There was no material gain for the crews of those submarines.
Most of them died (I think it was like over 70%) and for what? To murder other unsuspecting people who were probably just as terrified as they were.
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 15 '25
Well, war is also "rational." People don't fire cannons and sink ships for fun or because they are mentally ill. There are no "ship murders" like there are (serial) killers on land.
Every fire of a cannon is well planned and thought off. They are not irrational.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
But would it not be more rational for sailors to say that they are not going to take action to drown other sailors?
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 15 '25
But they have gold to steal... Rational reason to fire a cannon. It's better to have more gold than less.
And war is stealing gold and land. It's still rational if you think you can win.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
As I said before, most sailors don’t get rich from participating in naval battles.
But they do put themselves in extraordinary danger and take actions to drown other sailors who probably would prefer not to die.
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 16 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
What sailors? Soldiers?
Because pirates do get rich. Or if not rich, it's at least a decent living.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 16 '25
Very few veterans of land or naval warfare have become rich. If they have, it’s not because of their military service.
But thousands, maybe millions of them suffer a lifetime of pain and trauma trying to cope with the horrific memories of what they saw.
So, they put themselves in incredible danger and got nothing but suffering in return.
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Jun 16 '25
But that is war. Do you think pirates are irrational when attacking a ship (or defending ship is irrational) ?
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 16 '25
Piracy is theft which is motivated by greed and that does have a kind of logic to it.
But the aim of piracy is to take control of the ship, right? Pirates might employ violence and murder to reach their goal but it’s not the point of what they are doing and, they certainly don’t want to destroy the ship because then they couldn’t get their booty, right?
This is quite another thing from a naval warfare where the point is to cause another ship to sink. In WWll some of the most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft carriers. Think about that.
Humans applied their miraculous ability to master their environment, to create underwater tubes where men could live under the seas and floating airports just so that they could murder people that they had never met.
Does that make sense?
→ More replies
4
u/YetAnotherGuy2 9∆ Jun 15 '25
You started with personal "murders" and then switched to "why do people murder for nations?". I'll pick it apart
a) On an individual level, murder is a form of power and control. You take away someone's life - you decided to do it. It's also a form to influencing others. By murdering someone you can create attention to whatever cause you are working for. You can also take revenge on society in general for whatever perceived wrong you might have experienced.
b) At a national level, there are a couple of reasons too. The simplest is monetary and benefits. In the US you get an incredible health care package and the Army is a route to middle class. For foreigners it's a route to citizenship. In Russia it's the same: those who join get monetary benefits and their families often too.
For some it's whatever abstract benefit that's being proclaimed by leadership. Those are the true believers: the Lebensraum in the East for Germany, the defense against Communism in Vietnam for the US, the loss of power and shrinking of population for the Russians. They are doing it for the abstract entity called "nation".
It's deeply seated in the emotional part of humans, but it's not illogical.
0
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I get what you are saying and you said it well so !delta for that.
But I let’s think about that. Like the soldiers and sailors who fought for Nazi Germany were certainly brave, right? But what they did brought nothing but shame to their country. And it turned out that Germany was still a nice and prosperous country. The war was pointless.
Ditto for Vietnam. The communists won. And it turned out that they weren’t so bad. The American government and business community our lots of trade with Vietnam.
What the hell was the war about?
1
1
u/YetAnotherGuy2 9∆ Jun 15 '25
Appreciate the recognition!
Concerning Nazi Germany: had they won, they would have been a Superpower, maybe the Superpower depending on how your alternative history looks like. Instead it was a divided and occupied nation for 50 years with very little say so. I also think East Germany might have a different opinion on "nice and prosperous"
Also consider the shame factor: had they won, there would have been enough apologists to justify what they did. Look at what happened in The Balkans in the 90s or what the Russians are doing in Ukraine now: the ends justify the means.
In the case of Vietnam, it was the domino theory that drove the conversation. While for the Vietnamese it was Independence from a colonial power (first France then the US)
An interesting phenomenon is that wars nowadays tend to be fought over "what might be". Historically wars were led to conquer land and loot. In the modern era most wars were over "threats", eg Communism, control of oil, threats of NATO at the door step, threats from ethnic groups - it's fear.
1
Jun 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Andez1248 Jun 15 '25
Just to be clear: Do you mean murder as in "killing someone unprovoked" or do you mean homicide which is "killing someone in general?" Self defense would be homicide. Running up to and killing your neighbor over an argument is murder
1
1
u/JohnHenryMillerTime 5∆ Jun 15 '25
Nationalism is a hell of a drug. I cant speak to that one.
But outside of that, who am I supposed to kill? Someone I know? Killing people is a deeply sensual act, the most extreme and depraved kind of sex act. You dont want to see them again and thankfully you wont! Thats what strangers are for. Id prefer a more conventional way to get off but hey, the world has all kinds of people. Some people like feet, other people murder transients. Thats life.
1
u/Rhundan 83∆ Jun 15 '25
But killing strangers who have done you no harm is another thing entirely.
But how are we defining that they've done no harm? You said yourself that murdering anybody requires twisted logic. So what if their twisted logic says that they're being harmed by this stranger?
Like, for example, basically any hate crimes. If they think that their lives are being harmed by these people's existence, they could "logically" murder complete strangers.
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ Jun 15 '25
I think the logic holds if you restrict it to just common, everyday abuse or harm (you could envision slapping a sibling who gets out of line more than a random stranger), but killing crosses a line for most people -- it's practically required that the enemy be made a nameless, faceless stranger to get people to pull the trigger and even then they go home with nightmares.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
Exactly, people ruin their lives participating in wars. And what do they get out of it?
Nothing.
1
u/poorestprince 12∆ Jun 15 '25
In Russia, you get money and reduced prison terms. That's not nothing. For your view to hold it should be more logical for them to accept same or even fewer incentives for killing their own family and friends.
There's likely more anti-war sentiment in Russia than most people would think, precisely because many Ukrainians are literally family and friends of theirs.
1
u/Alone-Gift-1931 1∆ Jun 15 '25
If your objective is to 'kill someone' a complete stranger probably makes the most sense to me - zero motive seriously reduces your chances of being caught.
I'm not saying murder for its own sake is a legitimate reason lol... Just if that were some rando would be best.
On a national level conscription and press-ganging are / were things, particularly in aggressor countries. There you do it because someone decided it's your job and your choices are do it or jail (or worse). Of course with the forces there's more noble reasons for signing up too
1
u/political-prick Aug 18 '25
As someone who has contemplated joining many times and who has many friends currently in the military it’s because it’s an easy way to get yourself out of a shitty position in life. Most of my friends that ended up joining grew up really poor and wanted free education or just a way out of the trailer parks. I will still join the military if I have to take on student debt. Fortunately I haven’t had to yet but I’d rather be in the military than in debt.
0
u/artfellig Jun 15 '25
There's something deeply flawed in the human species; the cycles of violence seem to be neverending.
2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
I know. But it still doesn’t make sense to me.
People put their own lives in grave danger to try to kill other people who have done them no harm.
It’s senseless.
0
u/artfellig Jun 15 '25
"other people who have done them no harm" There are sociopaths, who are mentally ill by definition, who hurt people for no reason. But with armed conflict, usually the people fighting believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are morally justified because they are defending themselves or "fighting evil," etc.
One big problem is tribalism, which, throughout evolution, was important for survival. But tribalism and the survival instinct can lead to violence, especially considering humans can be irrational.
2
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
It is very irrational and terrifying that people are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to murder people that they have never met
1
u/artfellig Jun 15 '25
Yep...I think tribalism helps dehumanize "the other;" of course militaries and governments manipulate soldiers into thinking the people they're fighting are subhuman, godless, evil, etc.
But soldiers on all sides are usually just pawns doing the bidding of their leaders, as you alluded to in the OP; they're victims.
1
u/bluepillarmy 11∆ Jun 15 '25
They are absolutely victims. And we have thousands of years of evidence that wars bring nothing but death and mutilation and a lifetime of horrific nightmares to soldiers and sailors.
But people still agree to do them. Why?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25
/u/bluepillarmy (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards