wen u say that a solder is moraly doing the right thing when he kills his countrys enemy wat if u become enemy

Question

people say that a soldier is dong the morally good thing when he kills his countries enemies as odered my his masters-is he doing the morally good thing when his masters tell him u r now the enemy of your country and he then kills u

Answer 1

Well he will still be doing the right thing,his superior will be responsible for his actions that is why you can hardly get a solider persecuted if he was following an order,if he refuses he is court marshalled.

Answer 2

Well, no, he is not doing the MORALLY right thing by killing an enemy soldier, but he is doing the patriotic thing. If the enemy was about to kill an innocent civilian, and then the soldier killed him/her, then the moral imperative would be clearer. But killing anyone because someone else tells you to is, morally, absolutely the wrong thing to do. By doing so, you are placing your moral self in the hands of someone else, and then the entire question as to whether the war itself is morally right comes into question. So often, wars are started based on the worst of human emotions - revenge, anger, rage, pride, etc. So, can one say for certain that the war in Iraq is MORALLY right? If the entire reason for going to war in the first place was in fact a web of lies, how can it be moral? In which case, if you were a soldier in iraq and you killed an enemy soldier, you would be morally wrong. And, as someone else pointed out, right and wrong are so often relative according to who is asking the question.

Answer 3

You don't really make any persuasive points with this stuff, because you're simply playing switch-games with the concepts as though they're nothing but semantic entities, without any context in reality. One is not and does not become an enemy suddenly, randomly, and without at least perceived causation -- though this is what your overly simplified little scenarios seem to imply. You also over-simplify and distort the facts in your premise, as you imply that it is the killing that is the mission, when in fact killing is typically only a necessary condition to a military mission and is generally avoided altogether if at all practical. I know you probably feel that you are very wise and perceptive, but the fact is that you are dumbing down reality in order to make yourself feel brighter than you apparently are. Learn more; proclaim less.

Answer 4

Then the soldier is no longer your soldier and you need to get new soldiers to protect you. The soldier is morally right because the soldier is empowered by the people the soldier protects. The soldiers duty is to the people the soldier protects. If you are no longer one of those people , you clearly need new soldier duty bound to you.

Answer 5

Well, morals are more of a universal constant. Sure, you can THINK you (or in this case, the soldier) are doing the right thing, but your belief changes nothing in regards to who is right.

Answer 6

That defense didn't hold up at the Nuremburg Tribunals, many soldier's "doing what they were told' were sent to the gallows or prison sentences.. Of course, its never as black and white as that, the victors get to decide the 'morality' of the war.

Answer 7

Yes.
To protect against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

Answer 8

You won't become the enemy because you have that soldier.

Answer 9

sure whatever you got going on..you need to stop trying to think deep thoughts. It doesn't work too well for you.