Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

5

leftous wrote

You make a good point.

There is a similar idea commonly understood in leftist thought that "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism". By being a consumer, we are in one way or another contributing to the exploitation, domination, and violence that is capitalism. E.g. purchasing products made in slave factories in the global south enables their brutal working conditions. You could say this gives people in developed countries an even greater moral responsibility to resist and fight the system.

In regard to war, soldiers have a moral responsibility themselves to resist. In many ways they do. Many ex-soldiers are at the forefront of the antiwar movement in the US, and there are groups of former IDF soldiers like Breaking the Silence. Also there are soldiers who actively resist e.g. conscientious objector or even in Israel where you are imprisoned for refusing to serve, there have lately been groups of students resisting. So I would say in terms of ethics, resisting and finding ways to undermine the system is a morally responsible action that soldiers can organize and choose to do. Failing to gives them more responsibility.

So to answer your question directly - the buck doesn't stop with anyone. We all have a responsibility (some more than others), and especially those who are directly committing these acts and know what is going on.

2

Whatsthepoint wrote

What about peace keepers though?

(Soldiers whose rules of engagement are reactionary, e.g. the Blue Helmets, who will not fire unless fired upon)

In the larger picture, they may be there as part of a globalist grab or manipulation of power, but on the ground, they are there to help or protect local people.

I find the moral area here to be quite complex.

War is an awful thing, "there can be no such thing as a war on terror, because was is terror" is a fitting quote.

But when it has begun, people (and by that I mean soldiers etc.) Are going to die.

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?

3

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.