The words "I was just following orders" have become a slogan for shifting the burden of moral responsibility away from the responsible party. Even so, the notion that war can be just, and that individual soldiers do not bear moral culpability for their actions, persists.
To preface this post, as I'm sure most of you who will read this are aware: I was a soldier in the U.S. Army. I was a cavalry scout, and I was immersed in all of the traditions and practices of a modern military. I learned how to conduct reconnaissance of enemy positions, and I learned how to close with and kill the enemy using a light vehicle platform and in close combat. I trained hard and I became proficient in those skills. So when I'm talking about this, I'm speaking from a place of extensive introspection and soul searching.
Just war theory, among other things, asserts that, if a war is just, then the individuals soldiers who conduct that war, so long as they abide by the law of war, are not morally responsible for killing other enemy soldiers or civilian threats to their self or their fellow soldiers. I'm going to set aside the discussion as to whether a war can ever truly be considered just, as the ethical doctrine rests on a foundation that a state sovereign is an ethically valid organization--something I strongly disagree with. What I want to focus on in this post is just what I stated above: whether acting under orders as a soldier absolves a soldier of moral responsibility for the killing he does.
I really think this stems from the magical properties that are conferred upon a state entity by people and philosophers. After all, where it would clearly be extortion if the mafia told you to pay for their protection or else suffer the consequences, it's entirely acceptable for the state to engage in the exact same behavior and somehow be morally blameless. Likewise, when the state orders men with guns to go kill other men with guns, the men with guns the state sends are somehow morally excused for the killing they do. This is absolutely an illusion; killing is killing, no matter who is doing it. Whether killing can be ethically valid rests on whether the killed violated the consent of another or presented a reasonably imminent threat to do so.
Moral responsibility for killing another human being rests with the killer. Now, I will gladly concede that moral culpability can also rest with the people sending out the orders to the killer, but their share of the blame must ultimately be less than the person pulling the trigger. Think of it this way: what are military orders without soldiers to carry them out? They're little more than incomprehensible jibberish on paper or weird-sounding acronyms and numbers barked into a radio handset. Without a soldier, the commander's orders are....well, not different than the crazy homeless guy who's usually naked on the street corner, shouting nonsense at the sky. Soldiers are what turn commander's intent into fully-realized events.
The ultimate responsibility for killing lies with the person doing the killing. We may find justifications for the killing, such as in self-defense, but to declare an entire category of killing as justified because you can append the label "war" to it is absurd. Killing is killing, no matter who's doing it, and the person pulling the trigger bears the ultimate responsibility for that killing.
If you want to vote for me as a witness, cast your vote here! Scroll down until you see this text box and type in my name.
In the non aggression principle, how is the 'reasonably imminent threat' decided?
Who decides? (after the event, I mean).
A court of law, on case by case basis?
('he was looking like he was gonna kill me', kind of thing, not 'he had a gun pointed at me kind', of thing...)
"Reasonable" is necessarily a squishy term, but there has to be a threat that can be articulated and that the average person in the same given situation could construe as "this dude is about to kill me!" So, for example, mean mugging is not reasonably imminent. Even holding a gun in one's hand is not reasonably imminent. Holding a gun after declaring their intent, or manifesting intent in such a way as there would be no reasonable doubt as to it, would be a reasonably imminent threat. The reason that the term "reasonably" is used, both in current legal doctrines and from a philosophical point of view, is because judging whether a threat was imminent will always have some measure of subjectivity. That's also why reasonableness is measured from the view of the victim, though, and not the perpetrator.
Ultimately, the person who has to decide whether a threat was imminent is the arbitrator for the dispute. As it stands now, that's the factfinder in a trial, usually a jury for this kind of case. In a stateless society, I expect it would still be a jury for the most part, or it would be the arbitrator of the dispute himself or herself.
My preferred short-hand is action + manifest intent. I'm all about keeping yourself safe first, but there has to be some broadcast intent to harm coupled with some action to make that intent a reality.
Ok, I understand, but which is which? In some cases- the person shot by mistake without intent to harm, or the person about to be harmed (from his perception).
A psychopaths/ sociopaths/personality disorder's, wet dream...
Yeah, except sociopaths in a voluntary society are confined primarily because people cease taking their shit. Arbitration is the process of deciding who is right and who is wrong in a given case. There's a myriad of ways to do this without requiring a state, and they all center on arbitration. I don't see any reason why the majority of arbitrators would resort to deciding unilaterally on a case, as the jury system is well-established and has overwhelmingly more support in the minds of individuals. So, second point first.
What do you mean which is which? No one is shot without intent to harm; if someone is shooting, they intend to harm their target. If you're saying that the person intended to shoot someone else, who cares? The person doing the shooting is morally responsible for their actions. To the second perspective, that's why the jury decides whether it was reasonable or not. When I say that there is some level of subjectivity, I mean that what is reasonable is a rough average of what the average person would perceive in a given situation.
Which is also why I use action + manifest intent. In some cases, the action provides the manifest intent, i.e. pointing a gun at me is a demonstration of your intent to harm, and anyone in the same situation would not be acting irrationally if they thought the same thing.
Cool.
I agree - jury systems are the best way to adjudicate.
(A state only gets in the way of justice, from how I see it.)
Apart from the fact I do not really see a totally voluntarist society as a reality (more of an ideology), the pathology of psychopathy and sociopaths camouflages itself seamlessly within any societies.
These people are better 'hiders' than are the 'searchers' talents- as history more than highlights. (and why we are in the problems we are in now, today).
( 4% of the population - give or take - and one the reasons I find weakness in the voluntarist ideology argument.)
'They' -the 4%- will 'play' at voluntarism- perfectly camouflaged within societies - until it is time to change...
Using a voluntarism ideology against voluntarist ideologues would be child's play for these manipulators of men.
( or any ideology actually, as can be seen in communism. I'm not conflating voluntarism to communism! lol),
Interestingly over this last week, I am seeing patterns of behavior just like communists - when offering critical responses to the voluntarist.
( Which is very depressing).
Intolerance in people of any ideology seems to be a real weakness.
I'm pragmatic.
I don't disagree about the ability of a sociopath to blend into society. I'm well aware of what they can do and how they can do it.
However, if the world view of the majority of the population is "violation of property and consent are always wrong, even if the person is wearing a fancy uniform" the effective scope of a sociopath to cause real harm is practically reduced, and it's reduced to a large degree. The state is the vehicle by which sociopaths effect their greatest mistreatment of human beings. Why is that the case?
Because the state occupies some magical status whereby it is not morally responsible for its actions, all the while you are. Sociopaths won't magically disappear absent a state, but they will have lost their greatest tool for abusing other people.
As for intolerance of any ideology, can you expand on that?
Possibly - but I see social anonymity as the main vehicle for the 4% to proliferate their negative influence...
Ostracizing of old, doesn't work in today's world..
Very interesting point....
I'll need to think about that aspect and get back to you. ( I never really thought about it in those terms...and it's getting late here...)
I just posted this - as a direct response to my criticism of aLarken Rose post..
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/voluntarists-are-just-the-same-as-communists
Those who give unjustifiable orders or requests are guilty of fraud. Those who kill in obedience to those orders are guilty of murder, or arguably of manslaughter in some cases.
By ordering another person's death unjustly, the order giver makes an invalid claim of ownership over that life and the right to end it. By following the order without due diligence to verify the claim, the order follower demonstrates negligence and a reckless disregard for human life.
Amen. I don't think I could have said it better myself.
At the end of the day you have to live with your own actions. I'm not going to tell you I always followed orders because that wasn't the case. Everyone has a choice in the end. The question is whether they'll put their own neck on the line or if they'll hide behind whatever excuse they can muster.
Your post doesn't touch on whether fire is being returned in one way or another. Sometimes inaction is a lot worse than action. The soldier takes that burden of action and shoulders it for another. Irrespective of what side they're on.
Also, there's no 'the state' as an entity. It's a gradual transition. Is the President the state or is the biggest lobbyist the state or is the entire staff of the government who holds current power the state? Is the General the state? Are all officers the state? We all know full well that a seasoned Sergent has more influence than a junior officer in practice. So where does the state start and stop? There are no black and white labels.
Good discussion though.
I'd argue that the state is any man or woman who represents themselves as that entity and exercises authority under that mantle. Whether it's a junior sergeant or the Chief of Staff of the Army, they're all the state. The state is a collection of individuals operating through an authoritarian framework. You're right that there is no "the state" as a physical entity, but it exists in the way a corporation exists; a group of people, operating under a set of rules, for a particular purpose. In the case of the state, it's to monopolize decision-making through force over a particular geographical area.
I'm glad you brought up being in an actual firefight. I think we're on the same page as far as shoulder the moral burden, which is what I was getting at it in some many words. Whether it's a war or not, you are ultimately responsible for the killing you do. I'm not suggesting soldiers should be pacifists, but it is a delusion to pretend that war magically erases any moral culpability. It doesn't. I'd argue that if you come to this conclusion and you're in, you should get out. That's what I did, and I think anyone who honestly calculates the moral burden of killing another human being on the order of their superior would feel the same way.
It's the same argument for doctors who apply vaccines they know are unsafe, truck drivers who take pigs to the slaughterhouse, landscapers spraying pesticides on school yards, the maintenance guy who disables the fire alarm so it doesn't go off accidentally; a whole lot of people in general. It just keeps going and going.
The secretary who serves coffee to politicians is technically the state. She exercises authority in her range of tasks.
Except the state is something very specific: the group of people seeking to monopolize decision-making by force over a geographical area. Truck drivers don't do that. Doctors applying vaccines aren't in that category. The maintenance guy isn't that. Neither are the landscapers. In whatever capacity they are liable for their actions, they're not the state.
The secretary serving coffee is technically the state. You're correct. She is employed by that group of people and works, in whatever small way, to facilitate their goal.
That's state's a specific organization, boss. It's not a physical thing, but it is a group of people that can be identified and categorized.
we built our societies on hierarchies, that's how the system works, military is the part of the big system and it's built on the hierarchy too. To resolve this issue, we have to built our societies based on different system, chain of the command from few elite to the rest of population will always produce wars, where majority of low ranking people will follow command of superiors. Plus they know you want to survive, so you will try to shoot first
I agree that society is built on hierarchy, and to argue otherwise is nonsense, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.