Current Events > Moral Dilemma: You're a soldier and you're ordered to kill unarmed civilians.

(+) Yeah! (+)

zado19 posted...

Of course... how the fuck is this even a question? I mean you said killed right there

Never understood military worship

Murder is a legal thing. Definitions probably vary a bit from country to country.
If the killing of certain people is sanctioned by the government, then it is not "murder" because it was lawful.
That said, the enemy country may consider the act "murder" and if you happen to be on the losing side in a war then you may be punished once the government that sanctioned your killing is overthrown and you lose their protection.

---

Im not a soldier but if i was id follow orders.

---

I shoot the villagers and the ones the next village over just to be safe.

---

I'd probably just shoot around and intentionally miss amy civilians I saw.

Couldn't see myself in military, but if I was drafted or something and was given these orders that'd be my plan of action I guess.

---

doesnt the law of armed conflict make you a war criminal for this?


---

HBOSS posted...

doesnt the law of armed conflict make you a war criminal for this?

Certainly does.

---

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zJLzkvtlWbg&t=55

JK this is why I am not a soldier. Well one of hundreds of reasons.

---

Mr Hangman posted...

Yeah, that's my point. It's not a moral dilemma because morally there is an obvious right choice and an obvious wrong choice. It is a personal dilemma because for the individual consequences to you, both options are unpleasant.

The individual consequences for doing the right thing (not executing the order) would be short-lived pending an investigation that would reveal you were in the right.

---

This is why war vets come back fucked up every day.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

it's almost like I mentioned him in the OP

Indeed.

The difference is that I'm talking about the breaking down of the psyche to make someone hungry enough to validate the reason why they came there, as opposed to stumbling upon a massacre in session. Saying we should be more like Hugh Thompson doesn't address how something like that massacre existed in the first place.

---

wackyteen posted...

United States Army, I am not mandated to follow any order that is immoral, illegal, or unethical.

So if an invasion is illegal/unethical. The soilders could refuse to deploy?

---

ModLogic posted...

So if an invasion is illegal/unethical. The soilders could refuse to deploy?

Hundreds of servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status in 2002.

A person can always refuse to deploy, too. But depending on the nature of the deployment that can turn out to be a career killing move, obviously.

---

It really depends on the situation. There is a distinct possibility of that "unarmed, fleeing civilian" grouping up with a militia, terrorist group, or gang and returning to massacre your squad. And let's not forget that in wars, even children can be used as soldiers and spies.

It's also not uncommon for terrorist groups to utilize civilian centers, hospitals, or schools even, as a front or a shield, because they know that if the opposition makes any moves against those places, they'll immediately face heavy criticisms from human rights groups and other governments.

Now hypothetically, suppose a well known terrorist, war criminal barricades himself in a house in a suburban area. The area is inaccessible to vehicles, squads, drones, and snipers. Our only option is to bomb the place. So should we bomb a populated suburb, because a vicious war criminal is hiding in one of the homes, or should we just wait till he (hopefully) decides to leave? There are families living in that suburb, should they die because of one person's evil behavior? Of course not. But from that home where he's hiding, the criminal could get in touch with his fellow terrorist, and order a gas attack, a raid, or a bombing, thus resulting in a number of deaths that some might consider preventable, if they had just bombed that suburb. (I believe a real life scenario similar to this played out in Philadelphia, in the mid 80's. The apartment block that a number of MOVE activist were hiding out in, was fire bombed by the police department)

I went on a bit of a ramble there, but discussions like this are always fascinating. I once read about a social psychological study, where a group of students were presented with a simulated torture session, to see how far they were willing to follow orders, and the results were...Concerning. I believe it was called the Milgram experiment. I think it would be interesting to redo it today and see if the responses are any different.

I think the ethics of war are so much more complicated than most people assume.

...But anyway, if it's a case like Kent State, then the obvious answer is no.

---