Posted on Sep 4, 2015
Is there a moral justification for killing in war?
10.8K
106
46
11
11
0
I've started and canceled this topic a half a dozen times, it remains heavily on my mind though along with the feeling we should talk about this heavily avoided subject. I wrestle with the right words to use, I'm not a philosopher, I prefer to deal with things that I can apply quantitative, qualifiable, objective measurements to.
So here I am the same person who was appalled at witnessing someone use their vehicle to strike something as insignificant as a deer in an attempt to kill it and moved myself into a position to protect the deer bringing up a discussion about the justification of killing the enemy.
In my personal life I try to avoid hurting others with my words, thoughts, and actions and lean heavily toward protection, but this doesn't change the fact that if facing an enemy I would do whatever is necessary to stop the enemy from his/her intent.
When an enemy immortalizes the murder of captives, kills innocents, and encourages rape and enslavement of women as a recruitment tool, it removes from it's members any cloak of morality and makes it easier for reaching the conclusion that there is a moral justification of killing in battle.
We took an oath both Enlisted and Officers we repeated these words, "I do solemnly swear to 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." We shouldn't ever forget it.
http://soldier-ethicist.blogspot.com/2010/01/moral-justication-for-killing-in-war.html
So here I am the same person who was appalled at witnessing someone use their vehicle to strike something as insignificant as a deer in an attempt to kill it and moved myself into a position to protect the deer bringing up a discussion about the justification of killing the enemy.
In my personal life I try to avoid hurting others with my words, thoughts, and actions and lean heavily toward protection, but this doesn't change the fact that if facing an enemy I would do whatever is necessary to stop the enemy from his/her intent.
When an enemy immortalizes the murder of captives, kills innocents, and encourages rape and enslavement of women as a recruitment tool, it removes from it's members any cloak of morality and makes it easier for reaching the conclusion that there is a moral justification of killing in battle.
We took an oath both Enlisted and Officers we repeated these words, "I do solemnly swear to 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." We shouldn't ever forget it.
http://soldier-ethicist.blogspot.com/2010/01/moral-justication-for-killing-in-war.html
Ethics
Religion
Morals
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
1
1
0
There was a thread similar to this one last year where a soldier was having the mental battle of coming to terms w/ his religious beliefs & being asked to take a life in combat.
Myself, I have had to come to the fact that evil exists in this world. Not the grey area where evil is determined by the wording of a law. No, true, black, smoldering evil. The enslavement of an entire people. The slaughter of same.
If those that hold good up do not act, then this evil will permeate. Sometimes a righteous person is forced to eliminate evil. Sometimes the elimination of evil can include the taking of an evil life.
Myself, I have had to come to the fact that evil exists in this world. Not the grey area where evil is determined by the wording of a law. No, true, black, smoldering evil. The enslavement of an entire people. The slaughter of same.
If those that hold good up do not act, then this evil will permeate. Sometimes a righteous person is forced to eliminate evil. Sometimes the elimination of evil can include the taking of an evil life.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) What you said reminds me of the quote. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see) I joined the Army because I believe in the idea of America. I hope I can always believe in the leadership we elect to make the best possible decisions on when to apply the military to a specific situation.
As an Officer our/my leadership bear(s) the responsibility to ensure before we commit to action the violence necessary is justified.
I have not lost sleep over combatants, I do lose sleep over the non-combatants and civilians whom we are charged to protect that got/get killed by actions and more troubling our omission to act.
When someone wants to eliminate you, that is an easy call, justified each time.
As we are charged to protect others in a OA, this becomes the huge grey area.
For me, post WWII we have become the world police and everyone wants to lay the action or inaction at the feet of the US military and US leadership.
We must decide OUR interests and it is not the ENTIRE world.
As an Officer our/my leadership bear(s) the responsibility to ensure before we commit to action the violence necessary is justified.
I have not lost sleep over combatants, I do lose sleep over the non-combatants and civilians whom we are charged to protect that got/get killed by actions and more troubling our omission to act.
When someone wants to eliminate you, that is an easy call, justified each time.
As we are charged to protect others in a OA, this becomes the huge grey area.
For me, post WWII we have become the world police and everyone wants to lay the action or inaction at the feet of the US military and US leadership.
We must decide OUR interests and it is not the ENTIRE world.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The English king James version of the bible and to commandments say " Thou shall not kill"
The original version says "Thou shall not murder". It still applies in peace and war.
The original version says "Thou shall not murder". It still applies in peace and war.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Jus in bello (justice in war) is hotly debated in some philosophy circles. This is a hard thing to reconcile since we are all taught from day 1 that killing people is wrong. However, killing in itself isn't wrong the reason for the killing makes it morally commendable, morally neutral or morally blameworthy. Assume for a moment that command has identified a group as hostile and they wear uniforms so they are easy to identify but they are unarmed. It would not be morally blameworthy to kill those individuals. I would argue that the action was morally neutral (assuming the reasons for the war were just). Now if we change the scenario and put the same group in civilian clothes, shooting them unarmed would be morally blameworthy because there is no reason to believe that they are hostile and they were killed just because. Change it again and put an AK47 in their hands shooting at your troops. I would argue that killing them is morally commendable because you were defending them. Slight changes in the scenario can have major moral implications.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes. Those who do kill in war still have moral obligations, but regardless of your basis for morality (religion, etc) there is always a caveat (a few rare exceptions) in which war exists. Self defense is also always (usually) an exception to not killing.
That doesn't mean blindly following orders, but rather making a conscious decision (when safety and time allow) to assess the morality of the action.
That doesn't mean blindly following orders, but rather making a conscious decision (when safety and time allow) to assess the morality of the action.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
In combat I have to assume that it inevitiably comes down to kill or be killed! You can contemplate the morality of your actions after you survive (if you do).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I can certainly understand your hesitation with the question. I feel this question in its basic form is really if violence is ever moral. Violence is really just the manifestation of intolerance towards an individual or group. It seems we condone violence easier where there is intolerance. The level of intolerance seems to indicate the level of violence directed at the individual or group. The intolerance seems based on the variance of the morals, values, and norms. So why do we use violence - path of least resistance in bringing about ideological change. It seems to some degree that a variance in morals is the root cause of violence - bad guy thinks its morally OK to rob bank LEO thinks otherwise and shoots bad guy when he starts shooting trying to get away. The variance in the morals caused the violence.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
@SPC Nate Lamphier
Try a 1" clear twister tail with flecks in it. White also works on crappie.
Try a 1" clear twister tail with flecks in it. White also works on crappie.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google