11–20 of 91 posts
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out" If you are a subordinate and you disagreed with a certain order, either because you think the order is stupid or morally wrong, you can (and should) still carry out the order to the best of your ability. If the emotional distress caused by a contradi…
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out" If you are a subordinate and you disagreed with a certain order, either because you think the order is stupid or morally wrong, you can (and should) still carry out the order to the best of your ability. If the emotional distress caused by a contradi…
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_hierarchy "strict accountability – those who issue orders are responsible for the consequences, not those who carry them out" If you are a subordinate and you disagreed with a certain order, either because you think the order is stupid or morally wrong, you can (and should) still carry out the order to the best of your ability. If the emotional distress caused by a contradi…
This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.
I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.
What about the US federal government? Banks and investment firms? The oil companies? Blackwater, Haliburton, Bechtel and the like? Mineral extraction companies? Or perhaps - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft et al, who spy on you all the time?
> There are obvious and important differences between war and management consulting. The first straightforwardly involves killing people, the latter does not.
Well, a lot of the companies I mentioned above delegate the killing of people to other elements. E.g the government and its military forces.
Many countries still have military conscription, so sometimes enlisted soldiers do not really have a choice: you are either drafted with national pride, or drafted feeling moral guilt, or jailed for dodging and then maybe still drafted afterwards into a penal batallion. Or you break and bend the law.
> So here is an important moral question: is knowledge of moral risk (in the sense of a risk that I will do something bad, unknowingly) a reason to hold me morally culpable? I would say yes. Let’s make an analogy to physical risk: suppose you are a shift manager who is aware of general and persistent safety issues at a factory (by hearing about mutilations and deaths), even if you don’t know any of the specifics. For…
This is a dangerous sentiment as it incentivizes people to not engage with such questions in order to avoid the accompanying duty, which cannot be known before considering the question.
It is interesting that he brings up the assistance of helping Saif Qaddafi getting a PHD as morally flawed. The destruction of Libya led Africas richest country - with free education and healthcare - to become a failed state with black slave markets and human trafficking. Is everyone that voted for Obama also complicit in the human misery/genocides in Libya ( or insert Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan, Chad etc.)? https:/…
Nah. Voting isn't some divine representation of the will of the people; it's a feedback mechanism to push the governing apparatus toward goals that are beneficial to the voting population, however halting or misguided the approach is. Some people voted for McCain over Obama; does that give them the moral, anti-war high ground, since Obama killed Libyans and McCain never had a chance to? Not at all. Nor does throwing…
Don't morals factor into deciding what goals are beneficial to the population?
(I'm not even sure I agree with the proposition that voting pushes the governing apparatus this way in many democracies including the USA)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.
Why? What is meant by "right thing to do"?