Wouldn't another possible explanation of these results be that trying to kill someone, or participating in actions with the goal of killing other people causes the same "moral wound" as actually killing someone?
Or seeing people killed.
Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
41–50 of 81 posts
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#42Time plays a factor that may not be well controlled for here. As you get older the actions you have taken and the events you have participated in can impact you in new ways.
The risk perhaps not so much moral injury, but that combat and war is almost like a drug. Imagine going back home to a toddler raging about the wrong color cup, a narrow set of civil rules, and flipping burgers after living a life out the back of a pickup truck with nothing but a rifle and your buddies keeping you alive. Fucking boring. But I'm no killer, just a guy who spent a few months in a civil war, and met a lo…
I don't know, man. I am the kind of person who can't help but think "this 1.5-tons metal cage just moved 20 meters while I was blinking" while driving my car on a highway. Needless to say, I don't enjoy driving.
On that truck I would be thinking "we are exposed, an enemy can shoot at us from that cliff" 90% of the time.
To me "fun" is "not having to think those things".
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#43I would be surprised if there were any universal sense of moral injury. If the child grows up with warrior morals, they will not worry about opponent's death.
> If the child grows up with warrior morals, they will not worry about opponent's death.
What are 'warrior morals' and what is the basis of your claim? It sounds like science fiction or fantasy.
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#44Time plays a factor that may not be well controlled for here. As you get older the actions you have taken and the events you have participated in can impact you in new ways.
Yep, fairly common to hear about old veterans who will not discuss what they did in combat, one could guess because they don't want to resurface those memories.
They won't talk to you about it because you can't understand, and talking to you about it would just make them feel more isolated and alone. Only others like them could understand.
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#45> commonly-held idea that killing is an 'unnatural' act for humans People killing people is one of the better-documented aspects of human history. If it's really a commonly-held idea, it's a delusional one. I think what they mean is 'unethical' rather than 'unnatural'.
For individuals killing is incredibly rare. Most people will never take a life, and even historically haven't. It also of course doesn't follow that merely because killing happens it doesn't cause moral injury, it's obviously possible for an event to be both common and traumatic. It is generally accepted that most people will resist to kill and moral injury is very well documented for example in police who have to us…
I agree with your points, and how I interpret "natural" has nothing to do with how often an individual does something. Many humans drive their cars every day. Does this make it a natural thing to do? I can see a definition of the word that makes it so. Still, the way I see it is that driving a car is something very unnatural to do, even if many people do it every day, but killing humans is something very natural, although most humans will never do it.
Most people will absolutely kill another human if the circumstances call for it. It's in our nature to do so.
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#46The conclusion sounds reasonable and may well be correct. But I’d still be a bit worried about selection effects. The kind of person who signs up for a tour of duty to Afghanistan is probably a bit different than someone who signs up for a UN peacekeeping mission. So an alternative conclusion / title could be: “Moral injury more common among those with high moral standards”.
I have to agree. Evolution seems to have placed human empathy on a spectrum -- some have a lot of it and perform caregiver functions within a community, others have less of it and tend to perform defensive function. While we may not have physically differentiated castes as do ants, it would be unwise to assume that all healthy humans will have the same level of empathy. Layer on top of that, military training designed to further attenuate empathy, and you get a very select group. That said, since that group is basically "soldiers", the claim "Soldiers can kill without moral injury", isn't inaccurate.
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#47> commonly-held idea that killing is an 'unnatural' act for humans People killing people is one of the better-documented aspects of human history. If it's really a commonly-held idea, it's a delusional one. I think what they mean is 'unethical' rather than 'unnatural'.
> People killing people is one of the better-documented aspects of human history. If it's really a commonly-held idea, it's a delusional one.
Lots of things are well documented. Famine is too, but it has a big negative impact.
Humans are social creatures that live exclusively in groups; they cannot survive alone psychologically or, usually, physically. Groups are effective when they are at peace; evolutionary psychology, at least, supports not killing each other.
A universal aspect of every human culture is a taboo against killing.
Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#48Re: Soldiers in combat can kill without moral injury
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
For individuals killing is incredibly rare. Most people will never take a life, and even historically haven't. It also of course doesn't follow that merely because killing happens it doesn't cause moral injury, it's obviously possible for an event to be both common and traumatic. It is generally accepted that most people will resist to kill and moral injury is very well documented for example in police who have to us…
I agree with your points, and how I interpret "natural" has nothing to do with how often an individual does something. Many humans drive their cars every day. Does this make it a natural thing to do? I can see a definition of the word that makes it so. Still, the way I see it is that driving a car is something very unnatural to do, even if many people do it every day, but killing humans is something very natural, alt…
> Most people will absolutely kill another human if the circumstances call for it. It's in our nature to do so.
What do you base that on?
In one study of WWII soldiers on D-Day, half didn't shoot their weapons because they didn't want to kill someone (my memory of the study is vague). The military had to develop training to make soldiers more likely to kill.