Printable View
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'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddington
Disclaimer: I'm no soldier, only have some small bits of sociology under my belt.
I would say the ethics are the same on a casual level, except the military types have a chance to actually test those mores instead of just gabbing about it. It's still a matter of "our side is the good guys" mentality on civilian or military fronts.
There are many military types who think the propaganda is just that, and there are those who buy it wholesale. Same as the civilian population.
IMHO: killin' is killin'... regardless of animals or other humans. It shouldn't be taken lightly either way. We are animals, after all. ;)
Yeah, there are rules though. If you win, you get to decide what was right or wrong at the time.
Oh my...
If one says that soldiers fall under a different ethical code than civilians, it creates an us-vs-them, allowed-vs-forbidden double-standard dichotomy.
If one says that soldiers do not fall under a different ethical code than civilians, you will end up with a lot of dead soldiers.
Care to hone your question a bit more?
Daniel
(US Navy, 1991-95)
"I don't believe in ethics any more. As far as I'm concerned, the ends justify the means. Get what you
can while the getting's good—that's what I say! Might makes right! The winners write the history books! It's a
dog-eat-dog world, so I'll do whatever I have to, and let others argue about whether it's "right" or not."
- Calvin AKA Bill Waterson
Ahh, No I don't think I will hone my question down at this stage. I would rather let this thread meander for a little while. Though I will say I'm not really concerned with perceptions; I'm more interested in the bare bones: the actual ethical code.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirDaniel
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?
These are just a few of the issues that this topic touches on.
Its really very simple and you shouldn't try and read too much into it. Military people live in a different world with different rules. if the officer says take the hill even if its suicide you go. If he says kill the enemy you do it. You don't think about it or moralize it. You can do it years later and then see the shrink.
Its all black and white no in betweens. You kill the enemy or you get killed. That's war.
Though I can certainly see your point, it does fail to address the issue at hand. Some street gangs believe themselves to be 'soldiers'; however, they are obviously not condoned by the state. They kill each other, but are still punished for the crime of killing. We may not see it as war, but they certainly do. Should they be allowed to "kill the enemy?" I understand that it is difficult to apply any ethical code during a way, but that does not mean that there isn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Yes, soldiers are still responsible even if they are ordered to do something. Do you think that killing is ethically wrong?
Ah, a straight answer. So should we see soldiers as murderers? Or is there something else going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFDavis11
I think you have to determine that killing isn't unethical. I think you have to validate (or not) the reason or purpose for killing.
I think that is a societal decision.