# At what point do soldiers bear personal responsibility for their actions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207 "2005-12-05T18:05:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/41 "2005-12-06T17:42:00Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > That’s all well and good, but you’ve just given me your gut reaction in each case. I’m not really looking to explore your personal moral compass, but rather try to find a set of ethical guidelines for how soldiers ought to conduct themselves in an unjust war. Your answers above don’t even follow your own algorithm, and they include many more ad hoc and contradictory criteria. My first two answers do follow my algorithm. The third one does not, you’re right. I guess, then, I would say that, rather than being obligated to disobey any order that carries a risk of harming innocents during an unjust war, you should evaluate the ethics of any set of acts independently of orders when you’re in an unjust war. That is, the fact that the army tells you to do something has negligible bearing on whether you ought to do it, when you’re in an unjust war. By engaging in this unjust war, the army has forfeited its moral right to lead. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/42 "2005-12-06T17:46:20Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > I see. So when Charles Graner abused prisoners as a guard in Pennsylvania prisons, long before he ever got to Iraq, somehow that too is the fault of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the CIA? > > Connect the dots, indeed. That dot doesn’t connect, son, but the others sure do. “There is none so blind, etc.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/43 "2005-12-06T17:53:29Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That is, the fact that the army tells you to do something has negligible bearing on whether you ought to do it, when you’re in an unjust war. By engaging in this unjust war, the army has forfeited its moral right to lead. Actually, let me modify that a bit. When you’re part of a just war, there’s a tremendous good that may be achieved, and your cooperation in the war effort will help achieve that end. Under such circumstances, one of the risks you face by not following orders is that you’ll undermine the achievement of that great end. If you’re responsible for the predictable consequences of your choices, you need to be taking that predictable consequence into account; and so you ought to follow orders under most circumstances. When you’re part of a somewhat unjust war, there’s not a tremendous good that may be achieved: your army’s victory in an unjust war has all sorts of problems with it (the exact problems depend on the particular war, but if nothing else, victory in an unjust war encourages more unjust wars). Therefore, there’s no great risk in undermining the achievement of victory, since victory is so problematic. Therefore, you don’t need to take that into account when deciding whether to follow orders: you ought to judge the orders independently. When you’re part of an extremely unjust war, one in which your side’s victory is a horrific possibility, then you’ve got a prima facie duty NOT to follow orders. If, for example, you’re fighting on behalf of the Khmer Rouge, and you find out that one of your fellow soldiers is captured, then you’ve got a duty NOT to rescue him, because such a rescue will help achieve a horrific end. Only exceptional circumstances may overturn this, e.g., the special forces soldier who’s about to die and only you can save him. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/44 "2005-12-06T17:57:59Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > That is, the fact that the army tells you to do something has negligible bearing on whether you ought to do it, when you’re in an unjust war. By engaging in this unjust war, the army has forfeited its moral right to lead. I don’t think this addresses my argument. One reason is that the contract is not just between you and the Army. It is also between you and your fellow soldiers. If the Army breaks their end of the deal, that doesn’t absolve your responsibility to protect your fellow soldiers like you swore to do. Also, since your promise to follow orders isn’t conditioned upon whether or not you believe those orders to be just, you’re still breaking your promise, which is still immoral. You might argue that this is far outweighed by the immorality of following some orders, but I’ve already shown why that consequences-based analysis is inadequate. Finally, you’ve not addressed this: > [@me](#): > > No one is going to join the Armed Forces if they think that in any situation their fellow soldiers might just desert them. Since there is so much disagreement about which wars are just and which aren’t, you say bye-bye to the Armed Forces. This is an unacceptable moral result, given that the Army can and has done so much good. p.s. It seems like you’ve sort of lost interest in this debate. If you don’t want to continue, I won’t take it as a concession or anything–I don’t consider this a contest. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/45 "2005-12-06T18:02:45Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Actually, let me modify that a bit. > > When you’re part of a just war, there’s a tremendous good that may be achieved, and your cooperation in the war effort will help achieve that end. Under such circumstances, one of the risks you face by not following orders is that you’ll undermine the achievement of that great end. If you’re responsible for the predictable consequences of your choices, you need to be taking that predictable consequence into account; and so you ought to follow orders under most circumstances. > > When you’re part of a somewhat unjust war, there’s not a tremendous good that may be achieved: your army’s victory in an unjust war has all sorts of problems with it (the exact problems depend on the particular war, but if nothing else, victory in an unjust war encourages more unjust wars). Therefore, there’s no great risk in undermining the achievement of victory, since victory is so problematic. Therefore, you don’t need to take that into account when deciding whether to follow orders: you ought to judge the orders independently. > > When you’re part of an extremely unjust war, one in which your side’s victory is a horrific possibility, then you’ve got a prima facie duty NOT to follow orders. If, for example, you’re fighting on behalf of the Khmer Rouge, and you find out that one of your fellow soldiers is captured, then you’ve got a duty NOT to rescue him, because such a rescue will help achieve a horrific end. Only exceptional circumstances may overturn this, e.g., the special forces soldier who’s about to die and only you can save him. > > Daniel :smack: I swear I previewed. Anyway, I agree with most of your above analysis. But I don’t think that taking away the positive consequence of helping the entire effort, or adding the negative consequence of helping an evil effort, is the determining factor in whether one ought or ought not to follow a given order. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/46 "2005-12-06T18:07:29Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > It seems like you’ve sort of lost interest in this debate. If you don’t want to continue, I won’t take it as a concession or anything–I don’t consider this a contest. Thanks, but I’m also trying to finish up a semester’s worth of homework while I post. Maybe I should wait till I’m done before continuing the debate :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/47 "2005-12-06T18:09:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Thanks, but I’m also trying to finish up a semester’s worth of homework while I post. Maybe I should wait till I’m done before continuing the debate :). > > Daniel I wouldn’t want to be a procrastination enabler. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/48 "2005-12-06T19:16:38Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If, for example, you’re fighting on behalf of the Khmer Rouge, … Yet many people fought for the Khmer Rouge. Morals come from within the culture you are raised in. People aren’t inherently born with a particular moral sense, instead this is instilled in them in childhood and beyond. Thus, I think you could fight for a group like the Khmer Rouge and still be following your moral code in so doing. It certainly wouldn’t be my moral code. But I think it raises the question of who determines whether a war is justifed or not and what the criteria is. When I joined the Canadian military it was for economic reasons, not from some sense of patriotism. Yet, before I joined I reconciled myself to the fact that I may have to kill someone while serving. So, when I was on the rifle range shooting at paper targets I understood that those targets actually represented people. Morally I had little problem with this as I understood that I was in a military in a country like Canada where it would be very unlikely I’d be in a situation of having to worry about unjustified wars. Yet, after reading this thread, I have come to better realization of what I would actually do if I found myself in a situation where the war was unjustified. 1. If I hadn’t already joined up then I wouldn’t. I have no desire to inflict my moral, culture, or society on others if they don’t want it. 2. If I had already joined, then I’d do what is necessary to protect myself and my comrades. If this involved the total genocide of the opposing forces, civilians and all, then so be it. This is just a general comment upon warfare. It shouldn’t be entered into unless you are willing to do what it takes to win. More to the OP. We live in democracies where the military works for the people, not the other way round. If the democratically elected representatives of our societies decide it is the right thing to go to war then it is not for the soldier to then decide that the war he is fighting is unjustified or to fight that war in a different fashion because of his ‘opinion’. You fight to win because that is what you are paid to do. You defend yourself and your comrades as best you can while trying to accomplish the goals of the people who put you in the lousy situation in the first place. And you do all this with one hand tied behind your back trying to follow laws put in place by your government, international bodies, or by all the assorted monday morning quarterback types who will always criticize you no matter what you do, good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/49 "2005-12-06T19:25:27Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Yet many people fought for the Khmer Rouge. Morals come from within the culture you are raised in. This is a moral relativism argument. I reject moral relativism. Either something is right or wrong for everyone, independent of what they **believe** is right or wrong; or the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless from a moral perspective. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/50 "2005-12-06T20:50:22Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This is a moral relativism argument. I reject moral relativism. Either something is right or wrong for everyone, independent of what they **believe** is right or wrong; or the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless from a moral perspective. > > Daniel And yours, of course, are correct? Heh. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/51 "2005-12-06T21:16:05Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And yours, of course, are correct? > > Heh. Your smarmy laughter doesn’t make you sound smart, you know. On the contrary, it comes across as bespeaking an inability to discuss a point respectfully, or to imagine that other people aren’t as smug in their opinions as you appear to be in yours. If I didn’t think my beliefs were correct, I’d hold different beliefs. I am not, however, **convinced** that my conclusions about morality are correct. I fully allow that they could be wrong, which is why I am eager to discuss them and hear what other folks believe. If someone presents a solid argument showing me that my moral conclusions are incoherent, illogical, or cruel (as **Parker** did above in showing me that some of my answers were contradictory), I’m willing to change my conclusions. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/52 "2005-12-06T21:27:51Z")
Moral relativism is not a coherent position, for many reasons, but the simplest is this: the statement that we ought not impose our moral systems on others is itself an absolute moral position. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/53 "2005-12-06T22:01:34Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > Moral relativism is not a coherent position, for many reasons, but the simplest is this: the statement that we ought not impose our moral systems on others is itself an absolute moral position. Depends on how one splits one’s hairs. I wouldn’t care to say that there’s no such thing as an absolute right and wrong, but I would argue that it’s absolutely impossible to detect what that is, so moral absolutism that proscribes other moral systems is inherently flawed. I wouldn’t try to argue to tell someone they should believe… or not believe… in God for the very same reason. It’s impossible to say, so to reach out and persuade someone - no matter how much I believe it - would be acting with a false certitude. People do that all the time of course - it’s just not an exercise I care to engage in. And I just was trying to clarify the debate in my own sarcastic fashion. We’re not actually debating soldier’s personal responibility, we’re debunking LHoD’s entire moral worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/54 "2005-12-06T22:05:54Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And I just was trying to clarify the debate in my own sarcastic fashion. We’re not actually debating soldier’s personal responibility, we’re debunking LHoD’s entire moral worldview. Ya failed, honey. As usual, your participation in this thread betrays an unexamined philosophy and an inability to grapple with alternative views; as such, I’m not real interested in your future contributions to it. Doubtless they’ll appear anyway. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/55 "2005-12-06T22:14:44Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Ya failed, honey. As usual, your participation in this thread betrays an unexamined philosophy and an **inability to grapple with alternative views** ; as such, I’m not real interested in your future contributions to it. Doubtless they’ll appear anyway. While you’re up there picking up the Ten Commandments, grab me a sandwich, would ya? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/56 "2005-12-06T22:28:36Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > This is a moral relativism argument. I reject moral relativism. Either something is right or wrong for everyone, independent of what they **believe** is right or wrong; or the concepts of right and wrong are meaningless from a moral perspective. > > Daniel Which I suspect is the reason that we have separate countries vs a single world state. If everyone believed the same thing, or had the same morals, what would we be fighting about? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/57 "2005-12-07T02:05:25Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Which I suspect is the reason that we have separate countries vs a single world state. If everyone believed the same thing, or had the same morals, what would we be fighting about? Well, if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak; but they ain’t and we’re not. Folks **do** have different moral guides; but that doesn’t mean that discussion of morality is fruitless, nor that there’s no way to choose among competing moral systems. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/58 "2005-12-07T02:57:59Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Depends on how one splits one’s hairs. I wouldn’t care to say that there’s no such thing as an absolute right and wrong, but I would argue that it’s absolutely impossible to detect what that is, so moral absolutism that proscribes other moral systems is inherently flawed. I wouldn’t try to argue to tell someone they should believe…it’s just not an exercise I care to engage in. No, it doesn’t depend on how you split hairs. You have two options: a) there are no moral absolutes. In which case, you have no basis by which to persuade anyone that they ought not impose a moral system on others; b) there are moral absolutes, in which case, you must determine why some absolutes are acceptable while others are not. Moral relativism is a great excuse for apathy and isolationism, as you’ve outlined in your post. That is foremost among the reasons why we must reject it. If a nation is slaughtering an ethnic group, for example, we should be able to tell them they are wrong–and more importantly, impose our moral views using physical force. Oh, and the notion that concepts of absolute ethical values must be religious in origin is simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/59 "2005-12-07T03:22:16Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Well, i’d be in the UK Armed forces, and i’m pretty sure they don’t kill deserters and disobeyers nowadays. > > But if they did? Fine. I’d be scared shitless, but if I followed an order contrary to my moral code, then I would have no other option than to disobey it. Life in prison, death, whatever, if I followed the order I don’t see how I could live with myself anyway. I wouldn’t want to be killed/jailed, obviously, but that would be the punishment for my actions and so I would accept that. I’m against the death penalty, so I’d probably be campaigning against it while in my cell, but apart from that i’d pretty much just accept the punishment. That’s fine. However I think someone needs to analyze military commitment and decide as to whether or not they think their moral code is compatible with what would fall under the category of “lawful order” in the military. If you join the military, then you’re scum if you decide to disobey a direct lawful order in combat. There’s no other way to hash that. Disobeying direct orders in combat gets your comrades killed. Someone like you should never be in the military in the first place, and that’s fine as the military is not for everyone. I think it’s reprehensible for someone to refuse an order in combat because it “violates their moral code.” If you think a combat order might violate your moral code, then you are committing a deception by joining the military in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207/60 "2005-12-07T13:41:17Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > No, it doesn’t depend on how you split hairs. You have two options: a) there are no moral absolutes. In which case, you have no basis by which to persuade anyone that they ought not impose a moral system on others; b) there are moral absolutes, in which case, you must determine why some absolutes are acceptable while others are not. Actually, yes, it very much does matter. Because what I’m advocating isn’t really moral relativism. It only sounds like that on the surface. It’s actually “moral uncertainty.” There’s an absolute morality, but we can’t know what that is. > [@](#): > > Moral relativism is a great excuse for apathy and isolationism, as you’ve outlined in your post. That is foremost among the reasons why we must reject it. If a nation is slaughtering an ethnic group, for example, we should be able to tell them they are wrong–and more importantly, impose our moral views using physical force. Well, fanatics cause more wars than apathists. > [@](#): > > Oh, and the notion that concepts of absolute ethical values must be religious in origin is simply wrong. Which would be a simply wonderful comment if that’s what I’d simply said, but I simply didn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-do-soldiers-bear-personal-responsibility-for-their-actions/334207.md?page=4)