Failure404
Unverified
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2015
- Messages
- 22
Sorry if this is not the appropriate forum for this topic.
I’ve been discussing the ethics of war and service in the armed forces with a friend whose position is that war is morally reprehensible (which I agree with, but also believe that many times the only appropriate response to violence is more violence). Our conversation prompted a lot of thought that I wanted to get some more experienced opinions on, as, obviously, I don’t have any of my own and am unfamiliar with how the military deals with these kinds of issues.
The main point I wanted to discuss is moral autonomy. Part of my friend’s argument is that volunteering for military service requires giving up one's moral autonomy or free will, and may require you to perform actions you are morally opposed to performing or consider to be morally/ethically wrong. He brought up how in the German military, they have a concept called innere fuhrung, which guides their leadership and allows service members to object to certain assignments on the basis of ethics without legal repercussions. It specifically states that “...it is not regarded as disobedience if the subordinate does not carry out an order which would violate human dignity.” (Customary IHL - 154. Obedience to Superior Orders)
I was hoping I could spark a discussion on the ethics of war (if anyone has read about just war theory, this is the main philosophical school of thought we’ve been referencing), specifically about the issue of giving up moral autonomy and whether that bothers anyone. I know it is inevitable that immoral acts are required of people in war, but how do you justify an immoral act when you cannot have all the information/intelligence required to confidently justify it in your mind. In an age where it is easy to see the failures of the past, how can a service member be confident the actions required of them are ethical (especially in moral gray areas), and are there options available to those who feel they cannot perform an action due their ethical beliefs? In other words, how can you be confident that an order is morally justified or must one avoid trying to rationalize things in these circumstances? (Just to be clear, my friend supports defensive and protectorate wars in defense of other people, but does not agree with many of the conflicts the US has been involved with.)
Have there been any instances you could point me towards where a service member refuses to act in accordance to orders because they did not believe they were ethical? Conscientious objectors come to mind, but I’m looking more for people who agreed to the terms of combat service but refuses a particular order. E.g. would someone be punished for refusing to participate in a mission that required them to potentially kill child soldiers, if they felt morally conflicted about it? I’m assuming there are many instances where people may feel conflicted about what they are asked to do, but do it anyways because they understand that it is necessary, or because they are trained to do whatever it takes to complete a mission. What I am asking is if there is ever scenarios where those who are asked to carry out the actions are not given enough information to justify the act and must simply trust in the higher ups, thus, sacrificing their moral autonomy and potentially committing an immoral, unjustified act. (And, this might be a somewhat heavy topic, but how does one deal with the weight of having to perform these tasks?)
To offer another example, the Vietnam war might have initially seemed justifiable and moral to those who fought, but history shows that the justifications were not that strong when we look back at the leadership and their decisions. Those who were punished for going AWOL might be looked at in a different light when we consider whether the acts were morally justifiable.
If I need to clarify anything, let me know. I hope that this is sufficient enough to start a discussion on the topic, though, as it’s something that I personally still don’t know entirely where I stand on it. Do you think moral autonomy is important, or should service members be encouraged to follow orders without question? And, I guess it would help to know what outlets there are for service members to voice their objections, should they feel morally conflicted about what they are asked to do.
You might also think that it is necessary for service members to give up their autonomy, in which case I would love to hear any and all viewpoints on the matter.
You might also have opinions on the efficacy of policies, like innere fuhrung, that allow a service members to object to performing certain orders, which I’d also love to hear.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance for any responses.
(This was the only somewhat relevant post on ethics I could find, so hopefully I’m justified in started this thread. Does The Military Need a Formal Code of Ethics?)
I’ve been discussing the ethics of war and service in the armed forces with a friend whose position is that war is morally reprehensible (which I agree with, but also believe that many times the only appropriate response to violence is more violence). Our conversation prompted a lot of thought that I wanted to get some more experienced opinions on, as, obviously, I don’t have any of my own and am unfamiliar with how the military deals with these kinds of issues.
The main point I wanted to discuss is moral autonomy. Part of my friend’s argument is that volunteering for military service requires giving up one's moral autonomy or free will, and may require you to perform actions you are morally opposed to performing or consider to be morally/ethically wrong. He brought up how in the German military, they have a concept called innere fuhrung, which guides their leadership and allows service members to object to certain assignments on the basis of ethics without legal repercussions. It specifically states that “...it is not regarded as disobedience if the subordinate does not carry out an order which would violate human dignity.” (Customary IHL - 154. Obedience to Superior Orders)
I was hoping I could spark a discussion on the ethics of war (if anyone has read about just war theory, this is the main philosophical school of thought we’ve been referencing), specifically about the issue of giving up moral autonomy and whether that bothers anyone. I know it is inevitable that immoral acts are required of people in war, but how do you justify an immoral act when you cannot have all the information/intelligence required to confidently justify it in your mind. In an age where it is easy to see the failures of the past, how can a service member be confident the actions required of them are ethical (especially in moral gray areas), and are there options available to those who feel they cannot perform an action due their ethical beliefs? In other words, how can you be confident that an order is morally justified or must one avoid trying to rationalize things in these circumstances? (Just to be clear, my friend supports defensive and protectorate wars in defense of other people, but does not agree with many of the conflicts the US has been involved with.)
Have there been any instances you could point me towards where a service member refuses to act in accordance to orders because they did not believe they were ethical? Conscientious objectors come to mind, but I’m looking more for people who agreed to the terms of combat service but refuses a particular order. E.g. would someone be punished for refusing to participate in a mission that required them to potentially kill child soldiers, if they felt morally conflicted about it? I’m assuming there are many instances where people may feel conflicted about what they are asked to do, but do it anyways because they understand that it is necessary, or because they are trained to do whatever it takes to complete a mission. What I am asking is if there is ever scenarios where those who are asked to carry out the actions are not given enough information to justify the act and must simply trust in the higher ups, thus, sacrificing their moral autonomy and potentially committing an immoral, unjustified act. (And, this might be a somewhat heavy topic, but how does one deal with the weight of having to perform these tasks?)
To offer another example, the Vietnam war might have initially seemed justifiable and moral to those who fought, but history shows that the justifications were not that strong when we look back at the leadership and their decisions. Those who were punished for going AWOL might be looked at in a different light when we consider whether the acts were morally justifiable.
If I need to clarify anything, let me know. I hope that this is sufficient enough to start a discussion on the topic, though, as it’s something that I personally still don’t know entirely where I stand on it. Do you think moral autonomy is important, or should service members be encouraged to follow orders without question? And, I guess it would help to know what outlets there are for service members to voice their objections, should they feel morally conflicted about what they are asked to do.
You might also think that it is necessary for service members to give up their autonomy, in which case I would love to hear any and all viewpoints on the matter.
You might also have opinions on the efficacy of policies, like innere fuhrung, that allow a service members to object to performing certain orders, which I’d also love to hear.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance for any responses.
(This was the only somewhat relevant post on ethics I could find, so hopefully I’m justified in started this thread. Does The Military Need a Formal Code of Ethics?)
(but to be fair, I never really played the game much).
