One man's Freedom fighter is another man's Terrorist.
Perhaps war is a state of chaos, or, one might argue, a state of injustice.Our world is a war-ridden world. War, is a state of lawlessness — a disregard to the law. — SethRy
I like the German answer to this problem. See here:Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? Furthermore, are soldiers different people in different places? Should they be responsible, would they no longer be responsible if peace is acclaimed? — SethRy
Our world is a war-ridden world. War, is a state of lawlessness — a disregard to the law. — SethRy
"Generally he has to obey.
He may but need not obey if the order has obviously no legitimate aim (e. g. "clean my boots" in usual situations), violates the soldier's own human dignity (e. g. "run into the city and shout that you are a fool"), or is unconscionable (e. g. obliges the soldier to spend amounts of his own money above limits mentioned in directives).
He must not obey if the order violates others' human dignity, international law or consists of a crime (including a misdemeanor). Otherwise, subordinates are guilty of their deeds if their criminal character was obvious to them." — WerMaat
Perhaps war is a state of chaos, or, one might argue, a state of injustice.
But it's certainly not lawless, is it? Humans came up with a huge amount of "martial law", from warriors' codes of honour to the Geneva Conventions... — WerMaat
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) would like a word with you. — Terrapin Station
But it's certainly not lawless, is it? Humans came up with a huge amount of "martial law", from warriors' codes of honour to the Geneva Conventions... — WerMaat
The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) would like a word with you. — Terrapin Station
War is not a complete state of lawlessness — god must be atheist
do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? — SethRy
These questions all boil down to one main inquiry; do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? — SethRy
Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? — SethRy
So aside from learning knowledge how to kill the enemy AND survive at the same time, a German soldier is burdened with having to deal with and make accurate decisions on heavy theoretical legal, and philosophical choices related to soldiering. — god must be atheist
do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? — SethRy
One: Not all soldiers have served in an actual war.Why I believe so is simply the fact that every soldier has gone through war and may have lived to tell the tale. It does not seem so convincing but war can indeed take a toll on a soldier's mind a lot, which can lead to decisions from a soldier that I think most of us would consider "immoral" to say the least — MomokoBandori
Not quite. A citizen of any country is also expected to know and follow the law - even if you haven't studied law. — WerMaat
He must not obey if the order violates others' human dignity, international law or consists of a crime (including a misdemeanor). Otherwise, subordinates are guilty of their deeds if their criminal character was obvious to them. — WerMaat
One: Not all soldiers have served in an actual war. — WerMaat
Two: War takes a toll on all people touched by it.
I would just give you an example I witnessed. There was a cute little girl, about 5 years old. She lived in a refugee camp where I volunteered and seemed to be all lively and happy, playing with the others. Then one day, somewhere in the city some fireworks went off.
And suddenly she came running into the building, desperate, crying for her father, shouting "Yaty al harb, yaty al harb!" - "The war has come".
Would you call her a soldier, too? I would not. But I admire her, because she survived. — WerMaat
Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? Furthermore, are soldiers different people in different places? Should they be responsible, would they no longer be responsible if peace is acclaimed? — SethRy
Now, if the morality and identity of a soldier is totally subjective, we would be the total arbiters of right and wrong (which shouldn't be a surprise). And that as an entirety, is every soldier entitled to respect of today's people, for attending war, despite of any immoral action they could've done? — SethRy
Now, if the morality and identity of a soldier is totally subjective, we would be the total arbiters of right and wrong (which shouldn't be a surprise). And that as an entirety, is every soldier entitled to respect of today's people, for attending war, despite of any immoral action they could've done? — SethRy
Following orders is not an excuse to be ignorant. — Possibility
Unfortunately, as in nearly all domains of human experience, there will be ignorance and the ignorant. Even many mathematicians are ignorant of constitutional law, for example. Are soldiers, who as a plurality seem to come from poor and underprivileged communities with underperforming educational systems, to be held to the same standard as the physician in ethical concerns? I’m not sure.
Furthermore, any American should feel gratitude to the all volunteer military for protecting our homeland. It is a great sacrifice. That said, soldiers are sent into questionable wars all the time. Politicians should be held to a higher ethical standard than the common GI.
These are my thoughts on the subject. — Noah Te Stroete
Why so? — MomokoBandori
Care to explain? — SethRy
So a soldier goes to war, and he guns down some women and children, and rapes some of the women, but he's a soldier after all, so he's entitled to respect?
No.
Do you think you have some example where a soldier deserves respect in spite committing an immoral act? — S
A Nazi and a Japanese soldier is an example. But I don't hold them in high regards. I don't like them, but the thing I respect about them is them fighting for what they believe in. Even though it's cruel and even though they have been blinded by propaganda, they still fought in battlefields and they still fought against thousands of men. But that's the only thing that deserves respect among them. The rest of the deeds like rapes, torture, etc. Do not absolutely deserve respect at all. — MomokoBandori
Fighting for what you believe in doesn't deserve respect at all without qualification. It entirely depends what you believe in, and even then, you should be judged on your actions over and above your beliefs. The Japanese soldiers who attacked Pearl Harbour and tortured prisoners of war in horrifying ways do not deserve respect. The Nazi soldiers who invaded Europe do not deserve respect. Isis soldiers do not deserve respect. — S
You present a good argument. However, in the field of battle, an order may feel more like coercion than a choice. — Noah Te Stroete
It's easier in Germany, where Napoleonic law and its derivatives comprise the system. — god must be atheist
I don't see how that would elevate the soldier to a higher status than any other key professions. A doctor, a politician, a policewoman, a sewage worker and the administrator of your local water treatment facility: All of them have the job to serve the public and make your life safe. The sewage worker is probably more important to your comfort and safety than the average soldier.The role of a soldier, the training they undergo, and the fact that each soldier serves their nation is all deeds worthy of respect. — MomokoBandori
Some of these Nazis are my great-grandfathers. I respect them as humans who tried to survive in a difficult situation, but I don't respect them for being soldiers.A Nazi and a Japanese soldier is an example. But I don't hold them in high regards. I don't like them, but the thing I respect about them is them fighting for what they believe in. — MomokoBandori
Exactly, well said.Fighting for what you believe in doesn't deserve respect at all without qualification. It entirely depends what you believe in, and even then, you should be judged on your actions over and above your beliefs. — S
Absolutely.I think when we give soldiers, politicians, police, business owners, priests, etc permission to shirk responsibility for their actions and hide behind an illusion of authority from some higher or universal power, influence or control, then we invite them to act without regard for the ethical standards to which we hold everyone else accountable. — Possibility
Yet it's something to go against what the entire world disagrees with. If you were an ISIS soldier, you'd be hunted down across the entire globe. If you were a Nazi, no one would spare you and no one would give a damn about you. If you were a Japanese, you'd already have honor with the Bushido code, even though it was taken too far. It's very bold to against the world, and these men did it. It's something to consider. — MomokoBandori
I don't see how that would elevate the soldier to a higher status than any other key professions. A doctor, a politician, a policewoman, a sewage worker and the administrator of your local water treatment facility: All of them have the job to serve the public and make your life safe. The sewage worker is probably more important to your comfort and safety than the average soldier. — WerMaat
Oh, wait, I can think of one difference: The other professions don't usually KILL people and destroy property and infrastructure. — WerMaat
On humankind, not on the single nation.
Impossible, you might say... it's human nature, you might say. Well, humans do a lot of impossible things that go against their natural instincts - why not this one? — WerMaat
It's sadly rather easy manipulate people into committing horrible violence. — WerMaat
Yes, but is the objective worth the killing? Who as the right to decide that?That's the cost of war. These men have to kill people in order to accomplish the objective. — MomokoBandori
Wrong side? Is there ever a right side, in any war?but lots of these men have to fight the wrong side of the war simply because they believed it was right. — MomokoBandori
Yes, but is the objective worth the killing? Who as the right to decide that? — WerMaat
And should not those that DO the killing have both choice and responsibility? — WerMaat
Wrong side? Is there ever a right side, in any war?
Soldiers kill on both sides, and on both sides people suffer and die.
And all to often, the political outcome is not really worth all the blood and pain after all. Look at Afghanistan, the country is still unstable after almost 2 decades of international military intervention. — WerMaat
War is not the only instrument of political change. There ARE other ways, better ways, I'm glad we agree on that. — WerMaat
I like those moments in history much better when a seemingly small thing suddenly turns things around. Take the opening of the borders between Eastern and Western Germany.
In 1989, the SED (Eastern German) politicians were discussing to gradually lift traveling and emigration restrictions. But the new law was still under revision and discussion.Then, in a press conference on 9th November, Mr Schabowski of the SED announced that no visa would be needed any more to travel to West Berlin. And a journalist asked, eagerly: "And when will this new regulation be in force?" And Mr. Schabowski wasn't sure and said: "Well, as to my knowledge.. immediate"
And in the same night tens of thousands of people streamed onto the streets, overran the border stations and literally started tearing down the Berlin Wall.
In this night, the soldiers of the border control could have opened fire and used deadly force to keep the people back... it wouldn't have been the first time it happened. But their superiors were floundering and at some point Oberstleutnant Harald Jäger decided to take matters into his own hands. Rather than using violence to restore order, he commanded the border control forces to stop passport control, open the gates and let people through.
Now, THIS is a person I respect, even though he was a soldier. — WerMaat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.