Capella University Do you align more with the traditional or revisionist view of the moral equality on combatants?
ANSWER
The question of whether one aligns more with the traditional or revisionist view of the moral equality of combatants (MEC) is a complex ethical dilemma that can be analyzed through the lenses of different ethical theories: deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism. Each of these ethical theories offers a distinct perspective on the issue, which can help in justifying one’s position.
- Deontology: Deontology is an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of moral rules and principles. According to deontological ethics, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. When considering the MEC dilemma:
- Traditional View: Those who align with the traditional view might argue from a deontological perspective that soldiers have a duty to obey their leaders’ orders as long as those orders do not involve war crimes. This duty arises from the principles of loyalty, duty, and honor. Soldiers should not be burdened with the moral assessment of the war’s justness; their duty is to follow orders.
- Revisionist View: On the other hand, those who support the revisionist view could argue that deontologically, soldiers have a duty to act in accordance with their own moral principles. If they strongly believe that the war is unjust or illegal, they have a duty to refuse to participate. This aligns with the deontological principle of not committing morally wrong actions, even if it means going against orders.
- Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics focuses on the moral character of individuals and emphasizes the development of virtuous traits. In the context of MEC:
- Traditional View: Supporters of the traditional view might argue that soldiers who follow orders unquestioningly are displaying virtues such as loyalty, honor, and discipline. These virtues are considered important for military leadership and teamwork.
- Revisionist View: Those who align with the revisionist view may argue that soldiers who refuse to fight in an unjust war are demonstrating virtues like moral courage, integrity, and responsibility. Virtue ethics would commend them for acting in accordance with their deeply held moral convictions.
- Consequentialism: Consequentialism evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. In the MEC dilemma:
- Traditional View: From a consequentialist standpoint, the traditional view may be justified by arguing that obeying orders and maintaining military discipline can lead to better outcomes in terms of national security and stability, even if the war itself is deemed unjust.
- Revisionist View: Supporters of the revisionist view may argue that refusing to participate in an unjust war could lead to fewer casualties, less destruction, and ultimately better consequences for society as a whole, even if it challenges military authority.
In conclusion, your alignment with either the traditional or revisionist view of the moral equality of combatants may depend on which ethical theory resonates with you the most. Deontological ethics may lead you to prioritize individual moral duty, virtue ethics may emphasize the development of virtuous character traits, and consequentialism may focus on the overall outcomes of soldiers’ actions in an unjust war. Your personal ethical perspective and values will play a significant role in determining where you stand on this complex ethical dilemma.
QUESTION
Description
In LDR 951S “Power, Status and Influence”, we introduced you to an article by Daniel Strand entitled “Ethical reasoning and military leadership”. (For your reference, this article is attached HERE. The author provided an overview of ethical theories and offered a method for thinking about ethical dilemmas. For this essay, consider the following prompt first, then answer the question below.
Moral equality of combatants (MEC) is a key element underpinning international humanitarian law (IHL).The MEC is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit war crimes, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. According to a traditional reading of MEC, soldiers should obey their leaders when fighting because they are not well-placed to determine the justness of a war. However, in 2006, philosopher Jeff McMahan began to contest MEC, arguing that soldiers fighting an unjust or illegal war are not morally equal to those fighting in self-defense. According to this revisionist view, a soldier or officer who knows or strongly suspects that their side is fighting an unjust war has a moral obligation not to fight it, unless this would entail capital punishment or some other extreme consequence.
A recent (Sagan & Valentino, 2019) study found that the majority of Americans endorse the revisionist view on MEC and many are even willing to allow a war crime against noncombatants to go unpunished when committed by soldiers who are fighting a just war.
Question: Do you align more with the traditional or revisionist view of the moral equality on combatants?
In responding to this ethical dilemma, justify your answer with using at least one ethical theory: deontology, virtue ethics, and/or consequentialism. Make sure to explain each theory before you use it.
Fill in the order form and submit all your files, including instructions, rubrics, and other information given to you by your instructor.
Once you complete filling the forms, complete your payment. We will get the order and assign it to a writer.
When your order is completed, it’s assigned to an editor for approval. The editor approves the order.
Once approved, we will upload the order to your account for you to download. You can rate your writer or give your customer review.
