moral quandry
0
I already said how I feel about genocide and whatnot, but what about regular soldiers?
Let's say that it's October 2001 in the USA. Patrick is a 20-year-old who saw the 9/11 attacks on TV when they happened. He felt very angry about it, but more than that, he wanted to protect his family in some way, so that they would never end up lost for weeks in rubble or held captive in a plane or anything similar. He decides that he is going to join the army. To protect his country - to protect his family.
He gets sent to the Middle East. He follows orders, he gets shot at, he kills people, he sees friends die right before his eyes. When his tour is finished and he comes home, does anyone have the right to call him a murderer?
That example aside, a philosophy class of mine once had a discussion about "murder," "killing," and "war." The generally-accepted idea is that if you kill someone on the street for no reason, it's murder, but if you kill an enemy during wartime, it's not murder. You're still killing, but it's not the heinous act of murder, for which any person should be punished. The difference is sort of like when you kill in self-defense. How does everyone feel about defining murder as that?
Let's say that it's October 2001 in the USA. Patrick is a 20-year-old who saw the 9/11 attacks on TV when they happened. He felt very angry about it, but more than that, he wanted to protect his family in some way, so that they would never end up lost for weeks in rubble or held captive in a plane or anything similar. He decides that he is going to join the army. To protect his country - to protect his family.
He gets sent to the Middle East. He follows orders, he gets shot at, he kills people, he sees friends die right before his eyes. When his tour is finished and he comes home, does anyone have the right to call him a murderer?
That example aside, a philosophy class of mine once had a discussion about "murder," "killing," and "war." The generally-accepted idea is that if you kill someone on the street for no reason, it's murder, but if you kill an enemy during wartime, it's not murder. You're still killing, but it's not the heinous act of murder, for which any person should be punished. The difference is sort of like when you kill in self-defense. How does everyone feel about defining murder as that?
0
@^ Well, I know people who say that killing, even if its in self-defense, should still be punished as murder!(trash, I know, but ) Anyway What I want to say is, perhaps thats not a good example xd
0
I think you should prosecute the ones orchestrating the plans. The ones with the diseased minds aren't the soldiers or the weapons its the higher ups that give the orders. Every human has a sense of morality but when you are afraid of something or do something outside of your own will you are being controlled.
Picture it this way you play a war video game lets say Call Of Duty. Now the man in the game holding the gun and firing didn't decide to pull the trigger, you did, the one controlling said character. Because that character lacks free will, this is how it is in war. Soldiers are striped down to nothing and their minds are replaced to have no objections or free will against their commanding officers. This is essentially why it doesn't matter who made the gun, who fired it, or who killed someone. It's the one who ordered the act to be done that's truly guilty.
Picture it this way you play a war video game lets say Call Of Duty. Now the man in the game holding the gun and firing didn't decide to pull the trigger, you did, the one controlling said character. Because that character lacks free will, this is how it is in war. Soldiers are striped down to nothing and their minds are replaced to have no objections or free will against their commanding officers. This is essentially why it doesn't matter who made the gun, who fired it, or who killed someone. It's the one who ordered the act to be done that's truly guilty.
0
All people who violate the "rules of war" (Geneva convention,etc) should be punished. A soldier can not use the "was just following orders excuse" if he attacks civilians without credible information that they may have in actuality posed a threat. Combat is difficult and 99% of the time, especially in modern warfare settings like Iraq you have seconds to decent if the person is a real threat, an angry civilian trying to protect his home, a scared civilian trying to find safety.
Do I think that soldier should be charged with murder if he accidentally shoots a civilian? No.
Do I think that a soldier should be charged with murder if he shoots a civilian simply because he was ordered too? Yes, an example would be the soldiers who shot civilians trying to cross the Berlin wall.
For that situation, not only should the soldier be charged but, so should his commanding officers in a manner similar to what Gibbous proposed.
The act of shooting a civilian shouldn't be the only criteria in which we judge these actions. We should take into consideration the environment the soldier was in and what options he had. We are not soldiers and unless we step into their shoes on the field (even if you know someone who has served on the front lines) we have little to no idea what it is really like.
Do I think that soldier should be charged with murder if he accidentally shoots a civilian? No.
Do I think that a soldier should be charged with murder if he shoots a civilian simply because he was ordered too? Yes, an example would be the soldiers who shot civilians trying to cross the Berlin wall.
For that situation, not only should the soldier be charged but, so should his commanding officers in a manner similar to what Gibbous proposed.
The act of shooting a civilian shouldn't be the only criteria in which we judge these actions. We should take into consideration the environment the soldier was in and what options he had. We are not soldiers and unless we step into their shoes on the field (even if you know someone who has served on the front lines) we have little to no idea what it is really like.
