Modern "Warrior" Ethics

[Tgace]

By the actual definition of the word, (im paraphrasing here) a Warrior was a "soldier by class" so to speak. Samurai, Knights were born "warriors" and were a social class. Even tribal "warriors" were just the men of the tribe that were expected to fight (even they had Chiefs). When the farmers, artisans etc. were enlisted, trained and payed to fight was when Soldiers came about.

A lot of the stuff you see today (like the stuff expressed in your quote) is modern mysticism applied to "warriorship" that, IMO wasnt really a concern to the men who were "doing it" when they were warriors.

 

[ginshun]

Maybe it wasn't a consern in the past, I don't really know.

The traditional deffinition of warrior from 700 years ago is probably different than the one I choose to believe/follow today.

So be it.

 

[Tgace]

True...I just think that "Warrior", as a term, is being misused today as a self esteem/self worth booster. We all can approach life "as warriors" if we like, but to go around believing we "are warriors" is a different matter.

 

[Makalakumu]

True...I just think that "Warrior", as a term, is being misused today as a self esteem/self worth booster. We all can approach life "as warriors" if we like, but to go around believing we "are warriors" is a different matter.

Maybe we all just approach life "as warriors" only some do it to a degree more then others? For you, it seems as if there is a line one crosses and then one is a "warrior". Am I incorrect in this assessment? If not, what would that line be?

 

[Tgace]

Well, as I stated before. When someone is out "in the field" putting their lives on the line... it is a large step into "being a Warrior". If you read that cross link I posted to the "Soldier vs. Warrior" thread you will find a more rounded explination. There is a further distinction between a Soldier (who "puts it on the line" too) and a Warrior. Its a combination of mindset, lifestyle, dedication to "craft" and service as I see it.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol2/no2/pdf/31-38_e.pdf

This guy doesn't like the term "Warrior" at all. I must say there is much in this essay that I agree with too. However I wouldnt go so far as to say that we cant reclassify the term for modern application.

Michael Ignatieff believes in the value of soldiers. “However paradoxical it may sound,” he writes, “the … armies of the nation-state remain the only viable institutions we have ever developed with the capacity to control and channel large-scale human violence.”41 John Keegan states: “A world without armies — disciplined, obedient, and law-abiding armies — would be uninhabitable, and without their existence mankind would have to reconcile itself either to life at a primitive level … or to lawless chaos of masses warring, Hobbesian fashion, all against all.’ ”42 What the Canadian and American militaries have yet to realize is that warriors (however they qualify the term) have no place in these armies; indeed, they are anathema. In the end, only soldiers are society’s true defenders. Warriors have too personal a stake in chaos and war — a fact intimated by the truism that no real warrior wants to die in bed.​

​

 

[The Kai]

1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.

That's the offical definition. I guess my take on it warrior, war arts, =solider.

Martial arts = Civilian defensive systems

Why is there the need for ma'ers to get into the whole warrior thing? It becomes a new age mantra

BTW T-gace an excellent link. I think that the warrior has been romantised. The spartans are held up is such a rosy light, yet look into thier culture. They were not warrior/poets by any means!!

 

[Tgace]

BTW T-gace an excellent link. I think that the warrior has been romantised. The spartans are held up is such a rosy light, yet look into thier culture. They were not warrior/poets by any means!!

Thnx..and you are right, people have vastly romanticized the term. However, like I said, while the author stated a lot of stuff that I agree with (and he obviously has the "regular Army" disdain for special forces units) , I really dont believe soldiers thinking of themselves as "warriors" for a little "esprit de corp" is a big deal. They arent really looking to emulate traditional concepts of the term nor are they looking to institute a social class. If it makes them better at their jobs and has a positive end result, more power to them.

 

[rupton]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question

That's discipline, not warrior. Can warriors be undisciplined? I think that without discipline and self-discipline one can not be a warrior, so they are certainly linked. But instant willing obedience to orders does not a warrior make. I use a lot of real examples from my time in the Marine Corps. I knew a lot of people who followed orders that I would not consider warriors .

and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.
Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.

Well let's analyze that statement a little more because I think it's a non sequitor to state that a civilian can't be a warrior using your definition above (not the following orders one, the second quote) As a civilian I would still certainly kill or die for my country. I would also like to think I would die for MY Lord (Jesus) but I know that isn't what you meant by lord. So let's replace lord (which, yes, is outdated) with other things

-principles
-family
-law and order
-justice
-freedom
-non oppression

the list could go on, but the point is I would kill or die for all these things (a little dramatic, yes) so does this make me a warrior? I don't know I don't lay claim to that title myself, I never did even when I was an infantryman and it probably applied. I just want to offer a different point of view.

 

[rupton]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider.

That's a good point. I don't think that a lot of practioners realize that most "martial" arts are not martial at all. The majority of them were civilian and never originally a part of the military. So this kind of casts a whole negative light on "warrior" vis-a-vis military use. No?


[edit] I just saw that Andrew mentioned practically the same thing already about martial, sorry I missed it Andrew[/edit]

 

[The Kai]

Willing to die for your king or country or cause. That kind of a theortical test of warrior ship. Not too many average joes are goning to face that predicamant.

Living your life making your own choices is in some way anti-warriorship. After all Warriors were reflections of the culture around them, and products of thier cultures military elite, the image of the warrior poet is a little hinky.

 

[Bester]

This was an earlier thread that's kinda related I think. Worth a look.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9121

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not a big fan of the term "warrior". I wouldn't consider myself one...there is just too much mythical baggage for my tastes and I just don't need to fan my own ego like that.

However, I think that there is a system of ethics at work in the term "warrior" that martial artists try to emulate. Do these ethics reflect the actuality of what a "warrior" is? I'm not sure they do. What do they reflect then? What is the root of this ethical system?

 

[KyleShort]

From my perspective, a Warrior has to "put it on the line for something". There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.

Every animal on the planet will fight to protect themselves when pressed. Dosent make them "warriors" in my view. Fewer will go towards the danger out of a sense of duty or service to their fellows or their ideals.

Perfect.

 

[The Kai]

IMHO most school creeds are adaptations of military creed and thus are concerned with obedience and unquestioning loyality to the cause. Student are individuals that train each for there own reasons

 

[Karushi]

Your ethics mean nothing when that first bullet flies over your head. All of that crap goes out the window and it comes down to kill or be killed.

 

[Tgace]

What MOS were you?

 

[Karushi]

Mos?

 

[Tgace]

Military Occupational Speciality....judging from your combat experience I assumed you were military.

 

[Karushi]

Nope, I'm not old enough for the military. But now that I think of it, not so much when the bullets are flying but more when you're staring down the barrel it is hard to think of "what Jesus would do" so ethics are not a factor.