Necessity of the Military and Moral Responsibility

[Peter_Morris]

@Eonwe

How so?

did you actualy read my post? I’ve explained why your claim is a strawman.

It was pretty clear over there that a number of people were equating the ‘evil’ of the current war (as they perceive it) with the evilness of soldiers participating in said war.

Well, for a start, evil is too strong a word. I wouldn’t necessarily say they are evil. Amoral, certainly.

But apart from that it isn’t the fact that they participate in THIS war that makes them amoral. It’s the fact that they are professionals who will fight for any cause, good or bad. The next war might be even worse than this one, and they will willingly fight that too.

Not everybody said that, but that argument is the basis for this one.

I was under the impression that this thread is about the soldiers who claim no personal moral responsibility for the war that they are fighting in. I thought we were discussing whether they are, or are not responsible for what they do.

[Peter_Morris]

@Mr. Moto

So is a soldier inherently moral? Nope. But he isn’t inherently immoral either.

But he is inherently amoral

He is moral or immoral in rough equivalence to the society at large, really. The military does undertake to correct some character defects, and will discharge or imprison some who clearly can’t cut the mustard, so the military population might be by and large better than the overall society for these age groups.

Hardly. Maybe they commit less crimes than overall society. That does not maker them better people.

Every member of a volunter military has set aside personal morality, and has agreed to fight for whatever cause, good or bad. This whole debate is based on military people claiming that they, personally, are not respopnsible for the cause that their superiors sent them to.

In my book, that makes them worse than the average person.

[Eonwe]

@Peter Morris

did you actualy read my post? I’ve explained why your claim is a strawman.

Um, yes I did, thanks for asking.

Instead of just telling me to read your post, you could assume that either you weren’t clear, or I didn’t understand, and make an attempt at restating so that we can have a discussion about it. Even on a re-read, I’m not sure what strawman you’re alluding to.

In the other thread, numerous people stated that soldiers had moral obligations to not follow orders they deemed immoral (such as deploying to Iraq, in some examples). In this thread I changed ‘not follow orders’ to ‘quit,’ and I’m sorry if you feel that was disingenuous, but otherwise I’m pretty sure I was spot-on in my comprehension of a number of posters there. If necessary I can pull quotes from there, but I really don’t think I need to.

What part of . . .

It seems to me that the folks who say “yes” are asserting that a soldier, when faced with a questionable war, is under the moral obligation to quit his/her job.

. . . is a strawman?

@Peter Morris

I was under the impression that this thread is about the soldiers who claim no personal moral responsibility for the war that they are fighting in. I thought we were discussing whether they are, or are not responsible for what they do.

From the OP:

In summary, I’d like to debate whether or not a standing army can exist if each soldier is burdened with the moral responsibility of every action he is asked to take in the course of his job.

And from my more recent post:

My question after all of this conversation (which mostly is a polite version of stuff that has happened in the pit), and which people seem to mostly have ignored, is this:

How would you maintain an army where you allowed soldiers to make their own moral choices? What kind of institution would that look like? How would you ensure that you would have the soldiers and support for actions deemed ‘moral’ by the general public?

It just seems very easy to say, “if it’s not moral, don’t do it,” but how to you maintain and field an army if you let soldiers make that choice?

I am much less interested in ‘whether soldiers are responsible’ as I am with the question ‘how can you have an army with soldiers who are responsible?’ Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

[Peter_Morris]

@Eonwe

In the other thread, numerous people stated that soldiers had moral obligations to not follow orders they deemed immoral (such as deploying to Iraq, in some examples).

Yes, some people said that.

You assumed that we ALL think that because SOME said that.
I, for one, don’t think what you assume I think.

In this thread I changed ‘not follow orders’ to ‘quit,’ and I’m sorry if you feel that was disingenuous, but otherwise I’m pretty sure I was spot-on in my comprehension of a number of posters there.

And that does not accurately represent my opinion.

Let me state this clearly. They are not amoral because they didn’t quit. They are amoral because they enlisted in the first place.

What part of . . . [that] . . . is a strawman?

stated several times already.

I am much less interested in ‘whether soldiers are responsible’ as I am with the question ‘how can you have an army with soldiers who are responsible?’ Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Well, golly gee whizz, the title of the thread includes “moral responsibility” so I kinda assumed that “moral responsibility” was the main issue. Colour me puzzled if it isn’t.

I apologize for talking about moral responsibility in a thread titled moral responsibility, when in actual fact moral responsibility isn’t the main issue.