> But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless. I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet undef

> But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless. I would disagree with this. Agreeing to fight an as-of-yet undefined enemy is abdicating any moral decisions based on who the enemy is, or how the war is fought. It is delegating personal moral decisions to the masses. > He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. This is basically exactly my point. The soldier doesn't get to decide that it's immoral to carpet bomb El Salvador; they've already agreed to kill whoever their leadership tells them to. I find it unpalatable under my personal morals, because I believe there is no act with more gravitas than intentionally killing another human. No amount of societal cohesion or democracy can absolve a person of their personal responsibility for that death. The basis of the question is "How can you morally justify outsourcing your decision of whether it justifiable to kill a person or not?", because many of us simply can't imagine that. Democracies have done a lot of morally unbearable things, from slavery to the rise of Hitler, so they're clearly not infallible. This is basically just the Nuremburg defense with a veneer of democracy.