Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I hold both responsible -- the perpetrators for the actual act and the leaders for issuing an order with the expectation that the order would result in the act
I disagree.It's the fault of politicians that soldiers kill people.
I disagree.
A soldier makes up his own mind whether to kill or not to kill.
To blame a politician who is hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away is nothing more tan allowing the soldier to shrug off responsibility for his actions.
In the World Wars, where conscription was in effect, not killing was suicide. Literally: it was insubordination, and would get you court-martialled and shot.I disagree.
A soldier makes up his own mind whether to kill or not to kill.
To blame a politician who is hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away is nothing more tan allowing the soldier to shrug off responsibility for his actions.
And yet there is still a choice...In the World Wars, where conscription was in effect, not killing was suicide. Literally: it was insubordination, and would get you court-martialled and shot.
I'm not allowing the soldier shrug off responsibility. I am arguing that responsibility extendes beyond him, more - I'm arguing that politicians create the situations into which soldiers are sent and as such are ultimately responsible. This does not lessen the responsibility of an individual soldier.
But the soldier is the immediate, efficient cause. He's the more culpable of the two, I'd say.Maybe God will forgive the soldiers but will God forgive their commanders, especially that politicans who send others onto war while sitting safely at home?
I agree for the most part, but how about soldiers who go beyond merely following orders? Like soldiers humiliating 'enemies' or torturing them under some pretext. In such cases, it's apparent that soldiers exercise their free will to do something abominable, and the 'following orders' excuse wouldn't exactly work here.
Does God forgive soldiers? They are simply doing their job in order to protect us.
But the soldier is the immediate, efficient cause. He's the more culpable of the two, I'd say.
If i told you to go shoot someone walking down the street, and you did so, whom would God be more likely to forgive?
We have a duty to evaluate our actions and refuse any we judge wrong. To abdicate moral agency -- if such is even morally possible, puts us in the same moral category as a dog or cat, or perhaps a toaster.
I find the whole idea of armed warriors abominable. Even within the accepted rules of war I see his actions as immoral.
Why does a soldier have any duty to follow orders in the first place? What gives his "superiors" the right to usurp his "free will?" What gives them the right to determine whom the soldier's enemies are?
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?"
I agree for the most part, but how about soldiers who go beyond merely following orders? Like soldiers humiliating 'enemies' or torturing them under some pretext. In such cases, it's apparent that soldiers exercise their free will to do something abominable, and the'following orders' excuse wouldn't exactly work here.
Does God forgive soldiers? They are simply doing their job in order to protect us.
thats why it doesnt work.Its not a defence ,when the order or action is manifestly unlawful. Whats your point in all this?
the nazi's were only doing their job too... when the commanders were on trial for war crimes they could not use the excuse that they were only following orders.