Morality of resisting an occupation

[Bounty]

The situation is obviously different when there is an actual chance of victory, as others have noted.

Why is that?

[PeZook]

Why is that?

Because then you can put a probability that's >0 on saving your people from extermination. Obviously you can't do it all mathematically, since there's going to be various circumstances influencing a rational decision (like fog of far: how do you know how far away the Soviets are?)

[Bounty]

Is that relevant?

You are asking about the morality of a choice. Does it then matter what the outcome of the choice will be? Is a morally correct choice suddenly wrong because it causes more people to die?

I am not in the least convinced that you can judge morality simply by the number of people that live or die. There are factors at work that go beyond simple calculus. Occupations and wars never last forever; what sort of example are you setting for the survivors (or, indeed, the next country steamrolled by the oppressor) by actively taking part in genocide? Is your own life and that of those you love really worth so much that it can be used as payment for collaboration, even if the oppressor is taking actions that are fundamentally unjust? Is it worth so much that you are willing to set a precedent, both for the innocent and for other aggressors, that sufficient force will always buy compliance?

I mean, when is enough enough? If you are willing to boil down morality to a debit/credit of living bodies, what is in the end worth fighting for?

It seems like a utilitarian standpoint tries its best to debase and trivialize life itself by saying that quantity trumps quality and integrity, full stop. It goes so far in trying to keep the number of lives high that it doesn't seem to matter what those lives actually entail.

[K. A. Pital]

Is a morally correct choice suddenly wrong because it causes more people to die?

If you're utilitarian, yes it is. More people dying = more suffering. Hence that would be the less moral choice.

I am not in the least convinced that you can judge morality simply by the number of people that live or die.

More nuances to morality can exist in a calm and still environment where the question doesn't stand as "live or die".

If you are willing to boil down morality to a debit/credit of living bodies, what is in the end worth fighting for?

Less suffering for all. Or - more people surviving (1) and when goal (1) is achieved, an increased standard of living for those people.

It goes so far in trying to keep the number of lives high that it doesn't seem to matter what those lives actually entail.

Death is the ultimate suffering, so you can't say dying is better than living, even if your life is shitty. The only worse thing could be eternal torture without break but that is a myth.

Is your own life and that of those you love really worth so much that it can be used as payment for collaboration, even if the oppressor is taking actions that are fundamentally unjust?

That's certainly a quite different question. An utilitarian should sacrifice his own life if he feels that could save more other lives. Hence, it might be more logical not to take part in the genocide and actively resist it, hoping that it would lower the number of dead.

[Bounty]

Death is the ultimate suffering, so you can't say dying is better than living

If death was the ultimate suffering, euthanasia would not exist.

More people dying = more suffering. Hence that would be the less moral choice.

But you haven't limited deaths or suffering. The scenario presents the situation of one country placed in a wider world, which means that success at breaking this one country leaves other nations - where people live who are not oppressed by this invader - will come at risk if the initial invasion is a success. Is it moral to mortgage their lives, and their quality of life, to save your own?

I can ask that question out of a purely utilitarian viewpoint without even considering a wider morality. How do you know which action reduces death and, temporarily accepting your position, suffering, when your choices affect the very operation of the agent that is causing suffering, enabling him in his actions and confirming his views?

[Samuel]

If death was the ultimate suffering, euthanasia would not exist.

True, however most people choose not to kill themselves, even when the situation gets really shitty. As long as people are alive and have the option of killing themselves (and don't) than living is definately better than death. Of course a good amount of euthanasia is when you know you are going to die so it isn't really comparable to the rest of a person's life.

The scenario presents the situation of one country placed in a wider world, which means that success at breaking this one country leaves other nations - where people live who are not oppressed by this invader - will come at risk if the initial invasion is a success.

I can ask that question out of a purely utilitarian viewpoint without even considering a wider morality. How do you know which action reduces death and, temporarily accepting your position, suffering, when your choices affect the very operation of the agent that is causing suffering, enabling him in his actions and confirming his views?

Given that this seems to be "morality of resisting the Mongol hordes" I don't really think those concerns will come up.

[Akkleptos]

It's like:

Bad guy: Here's this gun. I'll kill you if you don't shoot these people from your village right here before me. By the way, I'm in full-body armour, so your shots are not going to really hurt me, if you tried. If you don't, we'll start by killing your family.
You: You say if I cooperate, by doing this, you will spare my life. And I only have your word as a guarantee.
Bad guy: Essentially, yes.
You: Fuck you. My not shooting these people is not what will be killing my family, but rather you, for asking this immoral act from me. Were you not forcing me to this "decision" no one would die. [EDIT:] Besides, I've got no assurance as to the wellbeing of anyone of these people, since your people already stated plainly that they want to obliterate us.