Who Is A Soldier Refuse An Illegal Or Unjust Order?

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

In Gallipoli, a 1981 film focusing on several young men who enlist in the Australian Army during World War I, an ethical dilemma is presented. One of the main characters, Archy Hamilton, is given an order by his superior officer, Major Barton, that will surely result in his death, as well as many others’, for nearly no tactical gain. From this order, the dilemma arises: should Archy follow the order given to him and charge fruitlessly into the enemy and inevitable death, or refuse the order in preservation of his own life? The natural instinct of survival—perhaps the most basic and primal human impulse—might lean one towards the option favoring self-preservation. In terms of a Soldier’s duties and Army ethics, however, we will see that the choice should be made to carry out the given orders even if doing so assures death, as long as the orders are lawful.

During the early 1900s, soldiers who fought did not have any say in their actions. They were told what to do, where to go, and who to take up arms against. These actions led to multiple complications and controversies among different World War 1 historians. Soldiers were taught to comply with all orders of their commander and disobeying such commands was rewarded by harsh punishments. Over time however, the soldiers began to see the situation from a different vantage point, As a result, they began to formulate escape plans, and they began to reject orders more frequently, and began to voice disapproval. This behavior infuriated their commanders, so as time progressed the soldiers attitudes changed.

The day-to-day connotation of the term “obedience” is different than that of military lingo. While in the real world morality trumps obedience at a specific point, in the military, soldiers are expected to obey their authority despite their personal opinion on the order. In fact, the Chain of Command is the official term used to describe the hierarchy each individual has over one another. Those who are not familiar with the graveness of the Chain of Command typically do not understand how soldiers can carry out some of the orders that they do. However, in a soldier's perspective, the consequences of disobeying the orders given to them are much worse than the act itself.

Deontology permits a comparative examination, because it allows for evaluation of an action based on how much it deviates from “the correct action” that would promote an autonomous individual. In essence, Kant finds that all have an absolute duty to avoid acts that treat people as a means to some other end; rather, people’s actions must encourage the rationally independent individual.

Kant’s position on duty has drawn much attention from critics and supporters alike. When looking at the significance of duty within Kant’s theory, it is necessary to consider the implications which it has on our ethical behaviour. It at first appears that Kant’s theory is one which is particularly cold, as it dismisses the idea of any inclinations having moral worth. Therefore when trying to decide how to conduct ourselves morally, we should aim to ignore feeling such as sympathy, which we in practise place high moral value on, and just focus on the restricting quality of duty. Herman argued that the theory was “troubling as it judges a grudging or resentfully performed dutiful act

The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant regards moral actions as right or wrong regardless of context or circumstance. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves as opposed to the consequences; what one should do in practice should be thought of as substantive concepts. Along with our fundamental ability to recognise this, Kant strongly believed that it is our duty as individuals to utilize our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous beings. These obligations manifest to Kant in two distinctive forms: those that are Hypothetical Imperatives and those that are Categorical Imperatives.

In Chapter seven we discussed deontological ethics and how good actions are made by the moral agent following moral rules. Deontological ethics has two types of intuition theories it is associated with: act-based and rule-based. Act-based intuitionism allows one to use their conscience to make decisions, general rules should not guide our actions. Joseph Butler was a key act-intuitionist in the 1700’s. Rule-based intuitionism states that our actions must be guided and followed by universal rules. William Ross is one of the most famous rule-intuitionist in history. Another theory associated with deontological ethics is divine command; this theory mentions that God commands and wills morality to one. Ross created seven duties that signify initial

This idea supports the idea that combatants do not make the decision to be aggressive based on war, rather it is based on fear. The fear of death motivates combatants to take on new moral codes that encourage violence. War is not the driving force of this as fear urges us to use security and power as a tool (Lebow). War is the product of honor, the moral code that is developed to be violent and atrocious stems from the motivation of fulfillment. Similarly to patriotic duty, Lebow’s thought claims that honor is the driving force of war and that war does not encourage a moral code of violence, rather is honor that does. An example of a contemporary war is World War 2. the honor driven Nazis had adopted the violent moral code as a means to fulfill his honor and appetite. “There are always people willing to commit unspeakable human atrocity in exchange for a little power and privilege” (Hedges, 2002:86). Lebow’s notion on honor as a fundamental drive provides the explanation that war is not the cause of rejecting existing moral codes for ones that encourage death, honor does. The incentive to nurture the “honor” drive is what causes the collapse of moral values and beliefs. In honor, survival is the primary imperative, which includes undertaking violence as a moral

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed his ethical theories based upon deontological ideas. A deontological ethical theory is concerned with obligation, one’s duty, which is derived from reason rather than in the maximization of some good resulting consequence. A deontological moral systems are categorized based upon its adherence impartial moral rules or duties. In order to make correct “moral” choices according to this way of moral thinking you would have to comprehend what you are morally obligated to do as well as what guidelines there are to regulate one’s moral obligations. Therefore, according to this line of thought, by honoring your obligations you are behaving “morally”. This also means that when you fail to observe your sworn duty you are then behaving “immorally”.

Kantian deontology is an ethical theory that was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The founding principle of this theory is known as the categorical imperative. Within the categorical imperative, there are two fundamental formulations to be observed. The first formulation is specified as, “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.” In other words, one should consider if an action is right or wrong by asking themselves if they would endorse that action. The second formulation is stated as, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” In general, the second formulation is utilized and discussed more often than the first because it provides a more specific and applicable framework for different moral issues. Kantian deontology explains morality in terms of perfect and imperfect duties, both to others and to oneself. Perfect duties refer to acts that are absolutely forbidden and are impermissible under any and all circumstances because they treat oneself or others as mere means. Perfect duties to others forbid an individual to murder, lie, steal, or fail to uphold one’s promises. In terms of oneself, perfect duties include abstaining from drunkenness and suicide. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, offer more leniency, as they are not specific. Imperfect duties to others are

Deontology as made popular by Kant argues that “… standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow …” Johnson and Cureton (2004). One of the major advantages of deontology is that it fits with a common sense of what is right or wrong even within most societies when it comes to the most egregious activities such as torture and murder. An individual’s duty or what they ought to do seems simple in most classes, at least on the surface. What happens when conflicting moral duties arise? For example, is it acceptable to break a promise or tell a lie? It seems that either

In this essay I shall be considering the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant with regards to what actions are as right or wrong, regardless of context or circumstance. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves as opposed to the consequences; what one should do in practice should be thought of as substantive concepts. Along with our fundamental ability to recognise this, Kant strongly believed that it is our duty as individuals to utilise our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous beings. These obligations manifest to Kant in the distinctive forms of the Categorical Imperative.

In the movie, A Few Good Men, Daniel Kaffee’s co-council meets with multiple military personnel who in essence carry a sense of entitlement according to their rank in command. Kaffee’s highly skilled team provides strong evidence to prove the innocence of Dawson and Downey through the case of obedience to higher authoritative figures. Crispin Sartwell conveys his opinion throughout his open editorial, “A Genocidal Killer in the Mirror.” Sartwell discusses the qualities needed to manipulate a person to genocide, and the reasonings behind this manipulation (Sartwell 118). He also contributes a majority of his evidence towards retrospective events of which he explains through detailed events. Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician, attempts to create a reasonable balance between the necessity to obey and the circumstances where it is acceptable to disobey in, “Just Do What the Pilot Tell You.” He also utilizes the importance of parental upbringing to attribute the ability to obey in humans (Dalrymple 122). Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst, philosopher, historian, and sociologist, evaluates the varieties of obedience. Fromm also confronts the moral dilemma that contributes to our ability to obey or disobey (Fromm 123). In the movie, “A Few Good Men,” the issue of authoritative power based on rank has a prominent role, of which together Sartwell, Dalrymple, and Fromm logically discuss the reasoning for this theory.

Illustrate the situation where you were told to wake up at five a.m. every day dressed head to toe in a uniform while you listen to a powerful figure with slicked-back hair or an unfashionable buzz cut demand you to do this and that. Not only are you expected to obey their commands as part of your duty, but you may even be expected to go against your own morals in order to be seen as honorable. A similar picture could be seen while watching the film A Few Good Men. Two young Marines are given an order from authority that ultimately leads to the death of another young Marine. Although the actions asked of the two Marines are questionable, they are expected to commit the actions told because questioning authority in the military is not seen as an option. You take orders. However, those in the military aren’t the only ones that have the weight of obeying authority on their shoulders; just as much as eating or drinking is apart of your life, so is the act of obedience. Obedience is a massive part of society as a whole. Every day, whether we realize it or not, we obey a level of authority. It’s a major structure and aspect of our daily lives. However, the question arises: how often do we aimlessly obey without taking into consideration our own well being along with the effect it will have on others? When examining the movie, A Few Good Men directed by Rob Reiner, where two Marines were ordered to kill a fellow Marine and did so, leading to their dishonorable discharge, one