Interesting...I ask because humans tend to find an inherent sense of wrongness in killing an individual - most wouldn't murder a stranger in cold blood, even if they stood to benefit from the killing, and someone they know is even further out of the question. Humanity seems designed to find killing repugnant for some reason; it seems a bit counterproductive to me, but that's just how it is.
However, put them on a field of battle, tell them to annihilate an entire race of their own kind, and you would be surprised as to how quickly that moral indignation fades. Some will still have problems with it, of course, but in general, soldiers specifically take on a job that requires them to kill en masse and it's suddenly seen as abnormal and undesirable for them to be unable to kill their fellow man.
Basically, humanity is odd in that it's unacceptable to kill one or a few people, but killing on a large scale is war. Killing on a massive scale (such as committing genocide) is either simply a statistic or otherwise unfathomable - generally unacceptable but something that we're willing to turn our heads away from as long as it's not happening to us at that exact moment.
It's an interesting distinction; I was curious as to whether you had any sort of boundaries like that. It's understandable that you wouldn't, and most likely preferable that way, given that it avoids the general morality issues that come with figuring out where the lines should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable.
no subject
However, put them on a field of battle, tell them to annihilate an entire race of their own kind, and you would be surprised as to how quickly that moral indignation fades. Some will still have problems with it, of course, but in general, soldiers specifically take on a job that requires them to kill en masse and it's suddenly seen as abnormal and undesirable for them to be unable to kill their fellow man.
Basically, humanity is odd in that it's unacceptable to kill one or a few people, but killing on a large scale is war. Killing on a massive scale (such as committing genocide) is either simply a statistic or otherwise unfathomable - generally unacceptable but something that we're willing to turn our heads away from as long as it's not happening to us at that exact moment.
It's an interesting distinction; I was curious as to whether you had any sort of boundaries like that. It's understandable that you wouldn't, and most likely preferable that way, given that it avoids the general morality issues that come with figuring out where the lines should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable.