Question

On the same day during the same war, three soldiers performed an identical act--killing an unarmed unthreatening civilian. However, the circumstances of the three cases differed. The first soldier was ordered directly by an officer to shoot the civilian or be shot himself. The second soldier received the same order indirectly but was not in a position to be observed, and therefore he could have ignored it without any threat to his own life. The third soldier received no ceder at all but shot the civilian out of anger over the support that many civilians gave to terrorists. Were the three soldiers equally culpable for their actions? State and explain your view.

Answer 1

the three soldiers are not in equal position. The first soldier does not support the killing of innocent on earned civilian. But to save himself he must kill the unarmed soldier because the officer orders him to do so and according to the rule of obedience to the higher authority he is obliged to do so.

The second soldier is in safe position because he is not given such order of killing himself. So he has the preference whether he should kill the unarmed civilian or not.

But the third soldier follows some individual rules and these rules and principles have been created from his own experience. He thinks that there are many terrorists and the terrorists are supported by the civilians. So both the civilians and the terrorists are equally responsible for spreading violent activities. Therefore he wants to kill both the terrorist and the civilians. From his point of view he is correct.

But from the study of the attitude of soldiers and the order of the officers it is obvious that the system wants to eliminate both the terrorists and the supporters of the terrorists. In this respect there is validity of supporting the action of the third soldier. But the second soldier has the option and he should follow the way taken by the third soldier. In such case the purpose of all the soldiers would be equal.