Thread: Do soldiers ethics differ to that of civilians?

Even the bare bones is a double edged sword.

We are Taught to obey without question yet we must always question. If a soldier is ordered to kill he kills, if he feels threatened he kills. But still he must question. If a soldier is ordered to kill a civilian after the target has been identified as civilian and he obeys the order and takes life, he is then guilty of murder.

The Geneva convention AND the Uniform Code of Military Justice Permit soldiers to refuse to obey unlawful orders. But you have to know the law, the rules of engagement, the conduct of engagemant, and proper escalation of force to make that call. Then your thought process must take place in fractions of a second to make the right call. War is hardly black and white.

A good soldier will hold himself to a higher ethical code, proper basic traning ensures that it will be instilled. That said, there are still accidents that happen, and there are still criminals in the Army. Sometimes collateral damage CANNOT be avoided. We hold ourselves to the higher code because we have to live the rest of our lives with our choices. And it is not easy to do so.

This is a subject that is very touchy, but I really would like to help you gain a better understanding of it.

-SPC. Recon U.S. Army Cavalry Scout/Sniper
Combat veteran O.I.F. 06-08 Mosul, Tal afar Iraq

Well said . . . I think at the end of the day it would have been nice to have had the pleasure of never having to ask "was that a good kill?".

yes soldiers have different ethics than civilians.


civilians follow a set of ethics called "the penal code" and soldiers follow a set of ethics called "the rules of engagement."

Well said . . . I think at the end of the day it would have been nice to have had the pleasure of never having to ask "was that a good kill?".

As nice as it would be to never have had to ask myself that, I see it as the price I must bear for what I have done and what I failed to do, part of the reconcilliation I must face to find forgiveness. I bear it all for the greater good, I was prepared to sacrifice everything when I raised my right hand the first time, the second time, and till my last day my soul is prepared for any price. I do not beleve in propaganda because I have seen with my own eyes what I fight for and what it will cost.

-Recon

Well said.

Honestly I feel like soldiers and the like follow the same ethical code as civilians; the difference is civilians are seldom placed into these same situations;
not to mention, society seems to have labeled certain killings "justified" and others "murder". It isn't a different set of ethics, it is only one that most civilians never have to see realized.
Even members of the armed forces are not allowed to go killing helter skelter anyone they wish. That is the movies; when one of us do it just as in the civilian world, there are murder charges;
otherwise, we have all deemed the state itself as worthy of having power of life and death. Executioners, police officers, soldiers, sailors, etc etc all are arms of that same entity.
So perhaps a more serious question would be what would your personal trigger be? if killing someone who is an immediate mortal threat to yourself or someone else is justified in the civilian world as "self defense" it is little different (to me) than doing the same thing on a battlefield. I believe there are very few who have had to do this (civilian or military) who did not at least wonder if they had done the right thing. To me this is simply the sign of a normal person. Normal people do not WANT to kill; they may wonder and hope they could if it were necessary, but it isn't something someone craves regardless. I think this applies equally to civilians as it does soldiers.

If someone were to kill your spouse, and upon pursuit you found them breaking into your grandparents' house with the same gun...would you shoot him? would this be murder?
Likewise, if you are a member of the armed forces and you see a group of armed individuals planting a roadside bomb (which may murder Americans, but may just as well murder others too) do you let them finish or do you shoot them? Is this murder, or is it actually similar?

To me, the difference is whether ALL killing is "murder" or if "murder" defines killing which is not somehow deemed justified by society.


I could ramble on.

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

To me, the difference is whether ALL killing is "murder" or if "murder" defines killing which is not somehow deemed justified by society.

The latter is true which is why we have different terms like 'kill' and 'murder'.

True soldiers operate under different rules. that's military society. that's how it is. But are the ethics really that different? I don't think so. The enemy has been pre-identified as hostile and mortally dangerous so the soldier acts accordingly. A civilian should do the same. Let's think about something other than killing, anything really. Does the soldier have a different moral code than the civilian regarding theft, rape, torture? I'd say they don't.

X

Originally Posted by Paddington

Do soldiers in some way surrender their civilian moral code when they enter the army? They certainly surrender some of their freedom. If a soldier does something because he is 'ordered to', is he still morally responsible?

Yes, they operate under different rules, but there are still rules. As Recon (?) pointed out, there is the difference between the penal code and the code of engagement and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). And as trials from Nuremberg forward have proved time and again, "I was just following orders" isn't enough.

OK, so you want a straight answer: The irony is, it isn't just a surrender of freedom, it is a surrender of self to the will of the government which, by extension, is the will of the people. They say go here, I go there. They say fight these people, I fight. I trust that my commanders from my LPO to my commander in chief will use me in the best possible manner. And, at the same time, as pointed out before, if I am given an unlawful order, it is my right (and obligation) to disobey it. This is the justification that some war resisters gave: they believed the war in Iraq was an unlawful order and they disobeyed that order.

And finally, I seem to read from your other comments you see no difference between a life lost in combat and a life lost in murder. Before I go any deeper, is that correct?

As far as I'm concerned, the line between rules of engagement and laws of the land are very thin. As part of the contract we abide by as members of an organized society, we surrender certain freedoms to gain the benefits of being part of the state.

Certain entities, whether civilians, soldiers, or other states make themselves an enemy of our state by their actions. Just as the penalties of one state making war against another are the loss of life of their soldiers (amongst other things), the penalty for one person, civilian or soldier, making war against part or all of his or her state is (in some cases still) loss of life.

So the question here includes just how far you are willing to empower the state to act in your behalf, preemptively or judiciously, against those who would make themselves enemies of the state.

Death and killing are not to be taken lightly, however, and not without just cause. As far as I'm concerned, having grown up hunting, served in the Army Reserve, and as a husband and protector of my family, those who would make themselves enemies of my "state" (whether my family or my nation) have placed themselves under the shadow of "just cause".

Soldiers (hopefully) are well aware when they enter their chosen profession that they are likely to have a choice to make, and are bound, ideally by their own moral code, to be very careful about who falls under the "just cause" shadow. An enemy soldier has made a conscious choice to walk in that shadow; a civilian has not.

For a large portion of my life, I hunted deer and elk for food, and woodchucks, squirrels, and other varmints to protect the livelihood of my family. This is not something my wife is fond of, since she considers the "just cause" shadow to be very thin indeed. And in the end, every individual and civilized state with a conscience or moral code has to determine just how big of a shadow falls under that "just cause".

Hope that makes sense. I'm tired.

Originally Posted by Paddington

I’m currently co-writing a brief book on the ethics of war. One topic that really sparks debate in my subjects department is: Do you think that soldiers fall under a different ethical code than civilians? Is war just legitimized murder?

Oh, another related question: Are there 'rules of war'?

1. There are rules of war.

2. Depends on how you define ethical code. If you define it as a set of standards that one should follow to regulate their behavior, then I would say soldiers (in my case a Marine) and civilians ethical codes should not be different. If you define ethical code as a set of standards or a code used to regulate an organization (military has the UCMJ, orders, directives, rules of engagement, law of armed conflict, geneva convention, and so on) then I would say that the military falls under a more stringent ethical code than civilians. I think the ethical code that the military follows encompasses that of the civilians.

3. War is the violent clash of opposing political wills. Therefore wars are fought by opposing governments armies. Armies are guided by the law of armed conflict, etc which legalize the shooting between two sides. If a soldier follows the rules they are not committing murder. If they don't follow the rules, then they are.

Just my 2 cents on the topic since you brought it up.

DISCLAIMER: I have never been in the military. So this is said with no experience as a soldier. And to any soldiers who read this I thank you for your service to both myself and this country. I appreciate my freedom.

So, the way that I see it, killing DOES NOT EQUAL murder. One is a state for the other. It is like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. For example if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family I am going to kill that person. It is not murder, in this case it is self defence. I would rather the person didn't come into my house. I don't want to kill anyone. But if I need defend myself and my family I will kill.

Same with soldiers. I think that for the most part soldiers are the same as you and me, they just have a different job. That job is defend the country they represent and it's allies. If they kill in such a situation I really do think it should fall into the defence situation. I think that the soldiers would rather not kill and that they would rather people not shoot at them.

With that said, if a soldier kills an innocent civilian, that is murder. Do you see the difference? Kill a soldier on the other side it is defence, kill a civilian who has little to no part in the war it is murder. There is no need to defend yourself from most civilians, so killing them is murder. Soldiers who open fire on a group of people when there is little to no confirmed threat are commiting murder.

I realise that I am treading on thin ice here. This brings up several other questions like: Is there a point that civilians are soldiers (enemies) by virtue of their actions and surroundings and that killing them would be defence? Or the question: If you are ordered to kill civilians is that an order of murder or can you not be held accountable for that because you acted on orders?

Just some thoughts I have rolling around in my head.