Combat Ethics

[Ray_McCullough]

I disagree Curt

If dominance is decided the fight is over becouse an animal in a desparate situation is still dangerous and continueing the fight could result in an injury that could keep the dominate male from fighting off the next male. Animals fight when they have to. Its not ethics its survival instincts.

Some of mans combat ethics are distortions of religion. An example would be a priest using a mace instead of a sword so that he does not shed blood. ( Which does nt make any sense). Not defending one self with deadly force when necessary because of "thou shalt not kill" . This delimma is a matter of translation. "Thou shalt not murder " is less of an ethics dilemma.

The difference between man and animals is men have souls. Ethics are determined through the idea of where your soul well spend the afterlife. With out this we are just animals.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

"Animals fight all the time, for any reason, and often for no reason at all"

Patrick, animals fight for a multitude of reasons. They fight to maintain their territory, to eat, and therefore survive, to defend their offspring etc.

I think you'll find that humans do the same thing, and saying that because we are discussing combat ethics we are not animals, is a weak argument, as is that animals don't have souls, and we do, because do you understand what animals say, and can you prove that they don't have a soul, or even that humans do?

Martin.

[Patrick Hardin]

"Patrick, animals fight for a multitude of reasons. They fight to maintain their territory, to eat, and therefore survive, to defend their offspring etc."

You know, you've actually got a point, there. They do have reasons behind why they fight. When I said they often fight for no reason, I was thinking of a situation like when two tomcats happen upon one another and face off. Sometimes they fight. I just forgot to consider that they are both trying to establish dominance.

So, with that point conceded, another question logically follows: is the same behavior ethical among humans? Should we hold ourselves to the same standard and try to prove we are tougher than anyone else around us by fighting/bullying any potential rival that happens by, or should we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I believe that is similar to the question that John asked to start this discussion. And of course, I know that historically people have done such things. But the question is about whether we believe such behavior is acceptable, ethical, honorable. And as I said before, I am of the opinion that as long as you don't start the fight, if the fight comes to you, then you should finish it.

Patrick Hardin

[Randall Pleasant]

Scholars

Regardless of why animals fight it is clear beyound all reason that ethics are not a factor in their struggles. Therefore, may I suggest that we drop the discussion about why animals fight. It does not add anything of significances to the subject, thus it is off topic.

[Ray_McCullough]

Martin

Genesis 1:26and27
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them."

Genesis 2:7
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul"

The same thing in Gen 2:7 is not said about the animals. " and man became a living soul"

Animals do communnicate. They communicate maintaining there territory, eating , survival, defending their offspring etc. They don t discuss Gods word or how to get to heaven. Combat ethics are determined by what is right or wrong, and where will my soul spend eternity. (heaven or hell?)

[Joachim Nilsson]

Ray McCollough wrote:

They don t discuss Gods word or how to get to heaven.

Neither do I. Not on this forum. Could we please we spared the biblical quotes in this discussion.

Best regards,
Joachim

[Filip Pobran]

well, i think that bible in this discussion is wery important, because, in that time, faith was one of the most important things. the pope was the most powerfull leader

[Ray_McCullough]

My earlier post was wrote to make my point without pushing religion, but I was called out to prove if man had a soul. So I qouted the Bible.
I did not mean to impose religion. We can discuss religion else where if you like.

My point still is that combat ethics are determined by religion of some kind. Christianity,Islam,Buddha etc....

Whether right or wrong. Religion is the resoning behind it.

Peace

[Gene Tausk]

Ray:

Using religious arguments as a support for a stance that religion played a role in the ethics of Mid/Renn warriors is acceptable.

Bible study, which is clearly the theme of your post, is not.

I will not delete your post because the discussion is on track, but this is not acceptable. Do not repeat it.


------------->>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside
Forum Monitor

[Martin_Wilkinson]

I'd like to point out that there is no real proof that humans have a soul. IMO the bible included things like that in an attempt to help keep the population under control, if your eternal soul is at risk, to highly religous people, you're not going to do whatever it is, and Med/Renn. people were highly religous, at least most of them.

My point with the reasons as to why animals fight is that many of the reasons animals fight, are the same as man, even now, look at Iraq, the rebels (i'm not sure what else to call them) are just defending their territory, from what they perceive to be a threat. We may not defend our territory to the same extent that we used to, but humans will still fight and die to defend what is theirs.

If i am getting off topic, i apologise, i just feel that it's relevant to the matter of ethics, as the reason for a fight is a major part in how far you go. For example if your child is in danger, you don't stop until the threat is gone, at least i wouldn't, at the point where your child is in danger, the law and ethics go out the window.

Martin.

[Randall Pleasant]

Martin Wilkinson wrote:
...if your child is in danger, you don't stop until the threat is gone, at least i wouldn't, at the point where your child is in danger, the law and ethics go out the window.

Agree. Combat ethics I think occur with in the context of institutions. As you say, if defending your family ethics play no role. Personally, I teach my family that we do not give Fist-Aid to people who break into our house (they shouldn't need it <img src="/forum/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" /> ). However, we do expect our police and military personnel to live and fight by select ethical standards. Likewise I expect that ethics play a less role when a knight was defending his keep as compared to when he fought as part of a larger army.

[Filip Pobran]

I expect that ethics play a less role when a knight was defending his keep as compared to when he fought as part of a larger army.

i agree. that was the reason why turks were so dangerous - they did not have that attitude (for a long time), but reinforcements which came to defend the lands that aren't their home had that attitude

[Martin_Wilkinson]

Agreed, if you're part of a crusading army or similar, but if you're defending your country, surely you are also defending your keep, because if you fail to stop the invading army, what's to stop them rampaging through the country and doing what they will with your land and family?

Martin.

[Francisco Uribe]

Well,
Vadi said "You know your heart, not your oponent's. Never rely on such a fantasy"... or something of the like.

The school that Vadi and Fiore represent have some very "non-knightly" techniques. Such strikes to the groins or kicks.
Amusinglly I have found that the uninformed consider these "dirty tricks". even more incredible is how some people consider that going to half sword somehow defiles the blade.

Evidently, we can not consider their fighting ethics from our modern standpoint. I have found that ethical views tend to change a lot, when people is faced to life and death situations, specially if their own demise will only mean the demise of their loved ones or what they stand for.
In such a light there is ample room to interpret ethics and behavior just as means towards a much more important end.
Is not Machiavello a perfect representation of how ethical behavior was to be considered, in the light of the service to the state?
His philosophy could as well, be a representation of a more generalized rennaissance point of view, that may as well include personal combat as it does for general politics.
Was not war a political tool by then?

Francisco

[Martin_Wilkinson]

Francisco,
Was war not always a political tool?
Also, i can see where people are coming from by considering shots to the groin 'dirty tricks' but, Bruce Lee said something along the lines of "in a fight you do what you have to to win, including kick the groin." it was something like that, but my point is that by modern standards they're 'dirty tricks' because people today don't spend much time thinking about fighting, let alone learning how to fight successfully, 'dirty tricks' are designed for you to gain an advantage, and in a fight gaining an advantage over your enemy, who is trying to kill you, is ethical, because it saves your life.

Martin.