is a solder being immoral when he just kills who ever he is ordered to kill in the performance of his duty?

Question

is a solder being immoral when he just kills who ever he is ordered to kill in the performance of his duty.To just kill who ever you are told kill becuase it is your duty does this show lack of morallity and the turning of a human into just a mindless machine at the command of others When u just kill with out asking why or what for is this just blind obednince and immorality

Answer 1

When two countries wage war against each other for variety of reasons. One among them to protect the land from the outside invasion. Here the soldier is performing the sacred duty to protect his mother land. Here the question immorality, blind obedience does not arise. It is the dharma of the soldier to kill the enemy.

Answer 2

If we accept the premise that the laws of society, and of combat, are the embodiment of its morals, then we must also accept the premise that a soldier's act is immoral when he blindly obeys an order (even by a superior, even if in the performance of his duty) if the soldier knows that what he is ordered to do is obviously illegal.

Mere obedience to an order from a superior officer has long been rejected as a valid defense in war crimes litigation if, in obedience thereof the soldier knew that the order was illegal on its face.

"It is the primary duty of a soldier to obey the orders of his officer but if the order is obviously illegal on the face of it, the soldeir has an equal duty to refuse to carry it out. This may not be easy, and it is for this reason that the solder's diffficult position should be taken into acount as a mitigating factor when considering what the sentence should be."

Answer 3

Ann, apparently you have some one in the Military, or are in the Military and are in a quandary about this "morality" issue...

Remember, the LORD had his people kill a lot of people, and HE killed a lot of people when it suited HIM to do so. HE wasn't wrong, or immoral. HE was eradicating Evil from the World.

Now, the Bible says we should "obey your Masters". Now if that means that your put in 'harms way' and have to Kill, because your "told to do so", then your not murdering, your performing your duty to your Masters, such as those from way back were told to do also, by "thier" leaders.

Murder is a crime of passion, and senseless killing because you "want" to kill, and are not told to kill in the performance of your duties.

Arrest your guilt and assage yourself with the knowledge that the Government has the "right" to go to War, and you are to do what the Government says. After all, the LORD put the Government in there in the first place.

I wish you well..

Jesse

Answer 4

After WWII, Nazi troops charged with crimes against humanity argued that they were merely following orders. It didn't wash, and they took that walk 'up the long ladder and down the short rope', as the old Irish saying goes. I have no admiration for the National Socialists, but I feel that this was unjust. It is a soldier's duty to kill, and to sometimes die, for his country. This means following orders. Yes, sometimes this means following them blindly. A soldier cannot stop and question his orders. If every commander of a battery of artillery hesitated every time a fire-mission was called to ask himself 'is this right, is this moral, are there civilians at these coordinates, etc, etc, etc,' obviously, there would be no fire mission. Which is why, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, direct disobedience of an order is a crime second in severity only to mutiny, and punishable by death.

A soldier has to go on faith that his commander knows what the hell he is doing. And from the brass in the Pentagon and the CINC in the oval office down to the grunt patrolling the streets of Baghdad, killing is their business. Killing is their profession.

Of old, in tribal and feudal societies, warriors fought other warriors. The object was not so much to kill the enemy as to cover one's own self with glory by the performance of heroic deeds. This meant placing one's self in the thickest part of the battle, and whether you were a Japanese Samurai, a painted Pict, an agile Zulu, or an armoured Viking, oh, my, the blood did flow. Then as now, there were rules in war. The early Vikings and their ancestors, for instance, would mark the field of battle with hazel wands; the fighting was to be restricted to that area. You know; like the WWE.

All this started to change with the development of the vaunted Roman Legion, the first professional soldiers. They were so well drilled, so much like an implacable machine, that the Jewish historian Josephus said of them that 'their practices are bloodless battle, and their battles bloody practices'.

In my humble opinion, the arrogant individual warrior was better. Yes, he was dangerous, unpredictible, and feeding the ravens was his trade. But now we have followed the Roman method; our armies are immaculately armed, superbly trained, capably led. The destructive capacity of a modern infantry or armoured unit is like nothing that could have been dreamed of even a half century ago.

Is a soldier being immoral when he follows his orders? In my opinion, no. He is doing his job, practicing his ancient and terrible trade. The great Prussian theorist Clausewitz described war as 'the continuation of national policy...using other means'. Remember that the soldier is just like his rifle, tank, helicopter, or cruise missile: he is the helpless tool of his political leadership. One head of state decides, for whatever reason, that he doesn't like another head of state on the other side of the world (sound familiar), and orders his troops to invade. Massive bloodshed and chaos, of course, follow.

Don't blame the poor soldier. Blame his Master. Blame the political leadership.

Answer 5

I would would think that the rules of engagement would allow someone to protect themself and/or thier brother if they were attacked first....you know the saying "it's either me or him/you" Also, a soldier has a responsibilty to not follow any order that is no lawful. IE If an officer says shoot that guy for no reason but I think you should...the soldier has a responsibility to say no and not do it. But there are consientous objectors...soldiers who think killing others no matter what is wrong...and they can get placed in a non-combat job or discharged.

Answer 6

Morality is subjective in human society, because we have access to truth but it is hidden in layers of deception. A man can't be faulted for acting according to a level of morality which is motivated by his love for others. Those that are truly immoral are the ones who sit behind desks and send soldiers into battle for dishonest purposes, particularly when they lie about the reasons for going into battle.

Answer 7

It's not so much the absence of morality as it is a reliance on the morality of his superiors, who are giving the orders.

At the same time, I believe soldiers should refuse to kill unarmed women and children, no matter the orders. There are certain moral principles, then, that should be non-negotiable.

Answer 8

because he's a soldier, and they taught them to purpose this. it really is that worry-free. they are experienced to kill, regrettably. i will't comprehend what's going to do for his or her international places in the experience that they kill the innocuous, and that i'm hoping that a number of them have an ethical subject matters with that. yet they practice them earlier they deliver them into the conflict, of their military colleges. They tell them: those anybody is our enemies, and likewise: continually follow the orders. and they try this.

Answer 9

I would assume a soldier know which battle he is fighting. And giving control over him to a power, entitled him to obey this power, trusting as best he can that he doesn't have the whole picture but they do.

Well, that's one opinion

Mouchie

Maybe you were looking for an existing reference, and not my opinion. Sorry, if it's the case

Answer 10

War in itself is unfair so anything related to that would automatically become unfair without any reasoning.