Thread: Do soldiers ethics differ to that of civilians?

Originally Posted by SirDaniel

They aren't set apart as some other class to be feared or revered (or called murderer), they're seen as regular folks because they are regular folks.

I guess that is what they are trying to do.
They told us that soldiers are actually civilians in uniforms.

That may be correct, but like I posted before, being in special situations (combat) tends to result in special actions.
And I hope that soldiers are then not seen as some other class to be feared or set apart.

Originally Posted by Antares

That may be correct, but like I posted before, being in special situations (combat) tends to result in special actions.

Ordinary people in extra-ordinary situations.

Originally Posted by icedog

I had a very different issue when I was in the Navy. As a Missile Technician on a ballistic missile sub during the Cold War I was faced with the question of whether or not I could "push the button". We were governed by the UCMJ only. there were no Rules of Engangement regarding our missiles. If we were to receive Emergency War Orders, we would launch all sixteen of our missiles at major strategic targets. Those targets were not necessarily military targets. During Battle Stations Missile drills, we would go through the countdowns and say to ourselves, "One away, goodbye Moscow, goodbye New York. Sixteen away, goodbye Vladivostok, Goodbye Chicago..." We were fully aware that at the end of it, there wouuld be no homes for anyone to return to. However, we had orders to continue launching missiles, even if we were torpedoed and were sinking to our deaths. We were not to save ourselves.

I think the question is not whether soldiers have ethics. Ethics are immaterial. Good soldiers, sailors, marines, etc are subject to the orders given them. They have an obligation to follow all lawful orders. It is clearly the governments that place those troops in harm's way that are depraved and without ethics.

I would disagree that there were no rules of engagement. They may not have been called that, but there had to be a criteria before the launch codes were sent out to your sub that someone followed to make the final decision to issue the order to launch.

Just my experience. YMMV

i could not of said it better than recon. i was in the 3rd/bn 75 rgt army rangers stationed at ft benning ga iwas also a sniper. not to get off the subject much but when you a sniper you enter a whole new world of kiling you may spend days or weeks studing your targets every move watch him look at pictures of his wife or children you develop a strange relationship with you target but you were sent to do a job. without hesitation delay or excuses. you have to focus on your mission and complete your objective(s) you block out all other thought, doubts or guesses you do not let your emotions get in your way. when you lay down at night you pray for mercy and have your talk with god when you get up in the morning its game day all over again


ssgt james szabo
3/75th rangers ft benning
1998-2006

Originally Posted by undertakingyou

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.

All members of the military take an oath, it is different between officers and enlisted.
Officer Oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely; and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; So help me God.
Enlisted Oath: I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
With those posed, I offer the following answers/comments:
1. Enlisted members only have to follow orders given to them by their officers if they are according to the regulations, and the UCMJ. Giving an order to kill civilians is not according to the regulation (UCMJ, Laws of War, Geneva Convention) and therefore does not/should not be obeyed. Officers swear that they will well and faithfully discharge the duties on the office they are about to enter, this means that they will have full understanding of the orders before giving any and know and understand the consequences of their order before they issue it.
2. The key point to war is that it is political powers/nation states/countries that have opposing wills that get settled by violence. Civilians in their pure sense are not part of that group. Civilians who shoot at military members or participate in actions that are hostile towards military members and not civilians at that point, they are part of the group that is opposing the will of the other political power.

Don't think it could have been said much better than Recon said it.

You still haven't defined your question and it sort of sounded to me that you have some point to make? If I had to lay odds I'm guessing you're of the opinion that all soldiers who kill are murderers?

Be that as it may, your question, stated as it was, could have been asking if soldiers, in society are more or less ethical than civilians. My belief is that, in general, soldiers have higher/more ethical standards, more compassion, and a greater regard for life than civilians that were never soldiers.

I don't want to define my question; I have to much respect for those with more experience than me in this topic.

I have no agenda; however, I will say that I do not think soldiers commit murder. I believe that many of you have touched on many of the topics that I am interested in; however, it's very easy to look at it from personal experience. Instead of trying to apply this morality, I am more interested in the way it works.

My 'official position' is that killing comes down to intent. If I was a psychopath and joined the army to satisfy my blood lust I would be committing murder. The majority of soldiers, however, are not psychopaths; instead, they are usually men and women who are just trying to do a job -- a very difficult job at that -- defending their nation's best interests.

This opens up a whole can of worms about the role of the state, etc; however, I would argue that in some respects a soldier enters into a social contact that moves above a standard perception of morality. When we commit murder we are doing something 'selfish' -- I don't think that this can be the case with the soldier; instead, they are doing something that is a 'virtue' -- something intrinsically good inherent in being a soldier.

Again this opens up an even bigger can of worms, e.g. what is a soldiers virtue, etc. I will leave this alone for now.

These are just some very quick points and are by no means the totality of what I believe. I really appreciate all the replies; it's a topic that causes a lot of personal responses -- I asked a group of friends who served in Iraq and one of them said: "Mate, when I'm looking down the barrel of a fu***ng gun, it all means nowt to me".

Originally Posted by raghur

I would disagree that there were no rules of engagement. They may not have been called that, but there had to be a criteria before the launch codes were sent out to your sub that someone followed to make the final decision to issue the order to launch.

Just my experience. YMMV

As a Missile Technician on a Boomer, I had no rules of engagement (except for when we pulled into U.S. ports and there were protesters starting trouble with us). I would never have engaged my enemy unless it was a Soviet ship. We were thousands of miles away from our primary targets. I would have followed orders passed down from the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. If we were ordered to, we would have launched. We were checked periodically through the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) to be sure we would not question the launch orders.

In the military you trust up and rely down.

if you are looking for a certain answer you could try a poll but put several choices on it then you can perhaps get a % of what most people think.

Originally Posted by jszabo

if you are looking for a certain answer you could try a poll but put several choices on it then you can perhaps get a % of what most people think.

Lol, when in doubt 'poll it!' I may do that at a later date; however, I feel that the contributions have already helped clarify my thinking on this topic.

Cheers folks.