3 ms·
But if doing evil(killing) is always the work of evil/amoral people can you actually have "good" soldiers? given that the work of a soldier at war involves kill
by Stranger43 3y ago
But if doing evil(killing) is always the work of evil/amoral people can you actually have "good" soldiers? given that the work of a soldier at war involves killing, especially as modern mechanized armies use weapons that makes it nearly impossible to avoid collateral damage.
Im of cause using moral in the relative term here as following an "code of ethics" and acting in "the interest of the common good" as described in that code rather then simply acting from hedonistic/sadistic impulses.
The problem with absolute morality is that it's of absolutely no use to an rational actor dealing with an real world that don't conform to the idealized/simplified model that such moral codes tend to depend on for logical constituency.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoSoldiers in war are rather different than genocide. The Geneva Convention makes this quite clear. The problem with following a code of ethics rather than simply acting on hedonistic or sadistic impulse is that you can pick a code of ethics that lets you act on those impulses - even encourages or demands that you act on them. Worse, those who most want to be hedonistic or sadistic are most drawn to those kinds of codes of ethics. I assert that if a code of ethics calls for you to commit genocide, that code of ethics is itself evil.