Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

leftous wrote (edited )

I will dispute that there is such a thing as 'peacekeepers'.

The blue helmets and their soldiers are hardly a noble organization e.g. the various sex abuses, child trafficking, and child prostitution they have been involved in.

Often they invade areas, led by the US, with the specific goal of empowering and strengthening a particular group that serves an economic interest to the west. So who knows whether those who fire on the UN 'peacekeepers' are actually just oppressed people who see the threat they pose, or the unchecked abuses they have been able to commit.

But let's suppose for a moment there is a UN soldier who just has no idea about the goals of the UN, and has no idea that they are actually not peacekeepers. The question becomes whether or not someone's moral responsibility is lessened by ignorance. I don't think it is.

Morally, if a pilot drops a bomb killing 20 people, but those 20 would have gone on to kill 10 friendlies, is it moral?

If not, what if the 20 'baddies' would have gone on to kill 20 friendlies.

Or what if it saved 50 friendlies,

Or was a car bomb factory and saved 100 friendlies

Would bombing 20 enemy soldiers to save 1 civilian be moral?

Where is the line?

These are obviously utilitarian style questions. Like I said, ultimately the greatest moral burden should always rest on those who make this necessary, coerce and exploit these soldiers.

You bring up a good point that it's hard to make these moral evaluations. Personally I would say they all are morally wrong - as you said there really is no way to find morality in a war. However, my point stands that there are ways soldiers (and everyone else) can resist and organize - so they don't have to be in these situations where they're forced to do oppressive, unethical, or evil things to begin with. Although I understand the point that they are victims of their circumstances and war just like everyone else when it comes down to it.