Is the morality of your cause suspended during direct conflict?

Question

This is more of a philosophical question, but does the morality of your cause play a part if you are a soldier in the process of being shot at?

What I mean is, if two soldiers are trying to kill each other, would the soldier from the more "moral" side be more ethical in doing so? Or do the ethics of the situation disappear when it becomes "my life or yours".

For example, was an American G.I. more ethical than a Nazi conscript in the context of the battle they were fighting? In that moment of "kill or be killed" do geopolitics factor in to their morality, or is each one equally justified in killing the other? Pretend they were both drafted to the cause, do they have equal right to fight even if one side is fighting for a cause that is evil?

Answer 1

People do what they have to do. Especially if both sides are fighting either as conscripts with no real say in the larger issues - or as volunteers fighting for a cause they believe in.

The idea is that you kill because it is necessary - and the moment it is no longer necessary - you do not kill.

And what is 'ethical' all to often is decided by somebodies political opinions. Very few people have a set of ethical principles they apply to situations. Generally they have a set of political opinions and anything (or anybody) that agrees with those opinions is 'good' and anybody who disagrees is 'evil.'

Answer 2

If it was ME doing the fighting, then no, my morality would not be 'suspended' during any direct conflict ... and that means that I would NEVER 'kill' anyone, and would probably never be able to do anyone any 'serious bodily harm' ... but that is 'only MY opinion' and should be 'right' only where I am concerned. I don't think it is FAIR to ask this about 'a soldier in general' because there are many 'ways' this person came to be a soldier (although 'being drafted' does 'even it up' some) ... and there are MANY REASONS for those soldiers to 'fight' other soldiers during a 'combat situation' ...
As an American, especially one born after WWII, you think you know (because it it what you were taught to believe) that the 'good guys won' and the 'bad guys (Nazi and Japanese) lost' that conflict/war ... but your 'belief system' (especially if you were raised in the U.S. and went to public schools here) does NOTHING to show you the 'other sides thoughts' in any REAL WAY ... they simply state that Nazi-ism was WRONG because so many Jewish people were murdered, and 'leave it at that' ... but if you know the 'whole story' then you should also 'know' that Adolph Hitler was INSANE, but that he 'came to power' in a country that had been 'badly beaten' in WWI and then 'left to heal without help' from any other country, and that what Hitler 'saw' was that there were many extremely wealthy Jews, and many more extremely poor Germans ... and his 'killing off of the Jews' included STEALING their 'riches' but NOTHING WAS DONE to 'give the money to everyone' ... it went only to the 'HIGHLY PLACED NAZIS' who 'ran the war' for him. In fact, the 'poverty' seen was NOT because there were 'Jews' taking all of the money, but because the 'economic systems' in Germany did not 'recover well' ... and most of those RICH Jews were already forced to live in 'Ghettos' set aside for them, and that they were PREVENTED BY LAW from 'free movement' and were literally the BEST CANNON FODDER that could be found on this earth, so that their 'RICHNESS' in money because FIRST THING and their PRISONER STATUS in a 'generally free society' made them 'easy targets.' So ... I can actually see 'both sides' of the argument about whether it was 'evil' to be a Nazi in general, as well as know why most of them 'became Nazi' when Hitler came to power. They felt that they had 'the right to fight' as much as we did on 'our side' ... but did you know that if you were a BLACK soldier, or a Japanese soldier, or a JEWISH soldier that you had to 'serve' with 'others of the same kind' at the orders of WHITE MALE officers and elected officials ... and that WOMEN were 'forbidden to fight' at ALL? So ... you have a 'good question' here, although I think that as given it is 'unanswerable' ... but it is still 'a fairly good question' that could start you 'searching history' for the answer to that 'morality' problem and how it was dealt with in different times by different countries ... and if you can come up with ANY answer other than 'WAR IS SILLY' and 'PEOPLE SHOULD GET ALONG' then maybe you'll have SOMETHING REAL TO SAY TO THE WORLD ...

Answer 3

Many of those nazi conscripts didnt have a choice. So I would say neither one of them wanted to kill the other for the most part.
But the USA GI was fighting for what he believed in and the Nazi conscript had a choice of kill the allied soldier or get killed from his superiors.
Thats the ugliness of it. I don't know if that answered your question or not.