is a solder a moral coward when though he dissagrees with kiling a person he still kills them becuase it is his duty. Is he showing physical courage but lack of moral courage. Or is he both a moral coward and physical coward because he fears the physical consequences of saying no
2006-09-30 06:20:44 · 17 answers · asked by ann 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
no, our soldiers are brave men and women.. there has always been wars and will always be wars and someone needs to defend the rest of us who are too chicken to go fight.
2006-09-30 06:23:15 · answer #1 · answered by ana g 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He has competing ethical duties. By becoming a soldier, he has a sworn ethical duty to follow the commands of his superior officers. If he doesn't follow this duty, the army can't function, and people in his own unit will die. I would say this ethical duty outweighs his ethical concerns about killing a specific person, as long as the specific order to do so is a legal order.
On the other hand, he can't point to "I was just following orders" if the orders are clearly illegal, like the various war crimes that have happened throughout time.
Conversely, he can't claim the war overall is illegal, and and use that to claim he can't follow any orders related to that war. The specific order has to be illegal.
2006-09-30 13:38:39 · answer #2 · answered by terraform_mars 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you join a branch of service, your "job" is to fight. All the stuff you do in your 9-5 job is to prepare for the fight. It's not a moral choice about selective murder, you are to kill whomever, wherever the government tells you. That's the job of a soldier. Everyone knows this. Anyone who makes it through boot camp is not a physical coward, and anyone who believes in freedom enough to risk his life has morals. You must be very young?
2006-09-30 13:36:17 · answer #3 · answered by steelypen 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A person who disagrees with killing, yet joins the military as a soldier, is certainly neither a moral nor a physical coward. He IS, however, an incredibly ignorant idiot.
2006-09-30 14:40:43 · answer #4 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The two can be reconciled by viewing morals as a hierarchy. In this case, it would be wrong to kill - but it would be even worse (morally) to neglect ones duties to the army.
The same reasoning goes for something as simple as telling as white lie - you're placing one moral (being kind) on a higher level than another (telling the truth).
2006-09-30 13:43:29 · answer #5 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What on earth would make someone enlist if they have such a moral opposition to war?? The military isn't a "pay for college" babysitter, it is a war machine, and the fact that we are at war (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the politics of it), isn't news to anyone who has enlisted in the last few years.
This is one of those questions that baffles me. What kind of person would put themselves into a position to even have to ask this??
2006-09-30 13:30:55 · answer #6 · answered by wildraft1 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he disagrees with killing he has no business being a soldier. There is no draft in the United States, it's strictly voluntary. It's quite obvious to me you haven't really given your question a great deal of thought nor been in the military yourself, and to try and explain the rules of engagement to you would be pointless. Save your question, and when you grow up ,read it back to yourself (it doesn't make any sense now and it won't make any sense then).
2006-09-30 14:09:15 · answer #7 · answered by GUERRO 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not an easy question to ans. As to the people here saying soldiers volunteer that's wasn't the case during the vietnam war. Some of us were drafted. I never carried a rifle, instead as I worked as a radarman. I don't think it would have been easy for me to shoot someone. As my Marine friend told me one time it's not natural to kill people, but I know he would do it because that's his job.
2006-09-30 14:05:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not called a "moral coward", it's called a "conscientious objector". No, I don't believe he's a coward, but they shouldn't have joined the service because they know they have to kill.
2006-09-30 21:01:39 · answer #9 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is not a coward at all. He is a brave person making a difficult human choice.
Be thankful that he is over there fighting for your freedom so you have the luxury of sitting at home and debating his morality.
2006-09-30 13:30:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One has to take a moral stand before he makes e decision to be a soldier. If it clashes, then its up to them to decide. When one chooses to be a soldier, he/she must acknowledge responsibilities of a soldier, which is to defend their country and cause even if it means killing the enemy. Coz on the battlefield, you either kill the enemy or get killed. Thats war.
2006-09-30 13:33:56 · answer #11 · answered by Cat Commander 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋