Ethical Dilemma: Killing in War - Justifiable or Murder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter motai
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pull
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of killing an enemy soldier in a hypothetical war scenario where both soldiers are conscripts, and the enemy soldier poses no immediate threat. Participants explore the moral justification of such an act, questioning whether it constitutes murder or is acceptable under the circumstances of war.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that killing the enemy soldier is unjustifiable, as he poses no threat and is a conscript, suggesting that it would be morally wrong to take his life.
  • Others contend that the duty to eliminate potential threats, even if the soldier is not currently dangerous, could justify pulling the trigger, despite acknowledging the ethical implications.
  • One participant suggests that the definition of murder should be considered, arguing that killing in war under orders is not the same as murder, which they define as illegal or inhumane killing.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the emotional and familial consequences of killing, expressing concern for the soldier's loved ones and the impact on their lives.
  • Some participants reflect on the adrenaline and instinctual reactions that might influence their decision in a real combat situation, regardless of their moral stance.
  • A few participants question the realism of the scenario, suggesting it may not yield meaningful answers due to its hypothetical nature.
  • One participant introduces a variation of the scenario, asking whether a direct order to kill would change the moral considerations involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on whether killing the enemy soldier is justifiable or constitutes murder. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the ethical implications of the scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the hypothetical nature of the scenario, which may limit the applicability of their arguments to real-world situations. The discussion also highlights varying definitions of murder and the subjective nature of ethical reasoning in wartime contexts.

  • #31
Murder by definition is pre-meditated killing of another human being.

personally i couldn't answer the scenario without a lot more information. if i had been ordered to shot any enemy on sight, then not shooting would be disobeying a direct order, grounds for court martial if the stakes were high enough. if i knew so much about him, such as he was a conscript and going home the next day and such, i expect that we then had an insider, and that would create a whole mess of things.. what if that soldier was the insider? what if killing him would put our insider in danger? what if letting him live would endanger the insider? what if he's part of an ambush? the questions go on... but not knowing answers to everything, as a real soldier wouldn't, i'd lean towards not shooting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
No, that's not the definition of "murder". The definition is the ILLEGAL, premeditated killing of a human being.
 
  • #33
HallsofIvy said:
No, that's not the definition of "murder". The definition is the ILLEGAL, premeditated killing of a human being.

On that definition, active euthanasia qualifies as murder, even when done at the behest of the person euthanized.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
18K
Replies
35
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
22K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K