Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
I can fault anyone for blindly following a command of their superior or boss. If I work at an accounting firm and my boss instructs me to cheat on a clients taxes, I would be at fault if I carried out that instruction. Soldiers have the ability to determine if they support the overall actions of the people at the top giving them commands. If a soldier feels it is immoral to continue the actions as outlined by those at the top, the soldier has a responsibility to disobey those orders.
Simply because they are in the military does not preclude them the ability or requirement to judge the actions of their country. They are not robots, even as much as they are trained to be. They remain human, and if they forsake their humanity for their country, they are at fault.
Personally, I find fault in killing innocent people for the political machinations of the President and the Defense Secretary. I find it inexcusable for a soldier to accept the killing of innocents (or even the guilty if there are other avenues towards defense) for those political machinations. Therefore, I find fault with the soldiers fighting this war. Do I consider them baby murderers? No. That's a loaded description. I'm certain they feel they are doing the right thing, even while I know they are not. Their intentions are admirable, even as their actions, on behalf of the President, are deplorable. They are simply misguided - in every sense of the word.
|
One main problem with your post is that I'm sure half of the people disregarded everything you said after reading your second comment. An accountant vs. a military official is probably regarded as blatant disrespect in the views of many.
However, regarding your statements. First, you have to define each position. Define an accountaint. Define a soldier. If an accountant's position is defined that he must do what ever possible to make the most potential profit, then how can you hold him responsible for his actions? He's doing his job. His job itself may be immoral, but it's not immoral to do it in the way that it is defined. But, you're not dealing with something like that. You're dealing with people that do not leave their moral beliefs at home. I mean they have the ability to use free will to avoid aspects of their job that would compromise their morals.
Also, I believe that military personnel should have the ability to not participate in action that he believes conflicts with his morals. The problem with this is that people abuse that aspect. Furthermore, we live in a democracy with many different belief systems. I support democracy and, therefore, I feel I must have that belief.
I'm confident you would agree with much of the previous 2 paragraphs.
Everyone can agree that cheating people out of their deserved money is wrong. So, your argument is rejected. It's something everyone could agree on.
But, lets focus on our current situation in the world. The account, for example, should be harshly by his peers if he cheats people out of taxes, and he knows that he is cheating people. However, what if he thinks that he is not cheating people? Even if his belief is a minority, you're still running into exactly what we are dealing with now. People have different opinions as shown in the post.
I'm confident you would also agree with the previous paragraph.
I think that is the extent of our agreement.
What is you define a soldier as "Someone that serves an army?" If they choose not to serve it are they moral soldiers? They're not following the established principles. What about an accountant? If his job is to keep financial records and his boss asks him to cheat other people, who is acting outside outside of their role? Simple, the boss. It's his responsibility to act in a way to allow the accountant to do his job without having to conform his own morals. Apply this to the military. Sure, you can blame a soldier for his or her actions, but are you targeting the right person? Afterall, it is his commanding officer's responsibility to make moral or ethical decisions.
You made a comment about how a soldier has a responsibility to make a moral decision. No he doesn't. The person that is the soldier does in my opinion but not as a soldier. You have to address each seperately. You can be a moral person but a immoral soldier and vice versa.