Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
- EthicsQuestions
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am
Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.
The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.
A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.
The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.
1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.
1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).
2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?
3. See 2.
4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
What the miilitary should do and what they do do aren't always the same, but the above should provide the DS solution.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
Fire away, would be the typical response.
- EthicsQuestions
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
I am still new to philosophy/Ethics, but it seems to me that this is a purely legal argument and not an ethical argument. So the civilians are protected by the law - are they protected by ethics also? Would you see an issue if the Geneva Convention did not exist?2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
But that does not really relate to the ethical situation. You can call them tactically stupid, but I am not sure how it helps them deal with the situation they find themselves in. Just as an aside, you often find that decisions that are tactically bad or strategically good and vice versa. Specifically officers need to consider the strategic goals of winning hearts and minds (being close to civilians so you can get to know them and help them with their daily life - this is not always a good tactical decision) as well as the tactical situation (defensive positions on high ground don't really further the strategic goals of hearts and minds and getting amongst the civilians).3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
Why is this so? Would you still agree if the soldiers were conscripts? Letting your soldiers die does not seem like a good tactical decision. Also, even if I accept that a soldiers job is to die so that others don't - is it to die for their own citizens or any citizens in the world? In the scenario the citizens are of a different country.1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
I understand what is expected from a soldier - but I want to know if it is 'right'.
I am curious about the ethical situation facing the two 'friendly' military officers - not whether what the enemy soldiers have done is prohibited or not. Even if certain actions by the friendly officers can be legally justified, this still does tell me whether the action would be morally/ethically correct.A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
Thanks to the both of you for your replies.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
There is no such thing as command by committee.EthicsQuestions wrote: ↑June 12th, 2019, 6:48 am Hi guys,
Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.
The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.
A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.
The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.
1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.
1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).
2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?
3. See 2.
4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
Only one military officer is ever in command and it would be his/her decision alone.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
Insurgents are fond of using civilians as human shields. Happens all the time in Arabia all over now. And in Africa. And in Southwest Asia. And formerly in Southeast Asia. During WW2 it happened in France, Germany, and Italy too. During the Russian Revolution of 1917 it happened there. It may be morally wrong, but as Aristotle pointed out to King Alexander, there are no morals in warfare.LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2019, 1:03 am A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
Fire away, would be the typical response.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
The Japanese and Germans of WW2 and North Koreans of the Korean War/Conflict were fond of killing civilians, as I recall from history (both were before I was born). The North Koreans got away with it since there was no final resolution to that war/conflict. The Japanese and Germans who were caught were tried and executed at war's end.Mark1955 wrote: ↑June 13th, 2019, 12:03 pm Reelvant ponits for your appreciation
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
What the miilitary should do and what they do do aren't always the same, but the above should provide the DS solution.
The brutality of the WW2 Japanese and Germans is unmatched anywhere in past history. In the case of the Japanese it was racial. In the case of the Germans it was ethnic. More recently there was ethnic genocide in Southeastern Europe as well, and many of these perpetrators were caught, tried, and executed.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
During WW1 and WW2 when big armies last moved out in the open through built up areas, the built up areas got shelled into the Stone Age.EthicsQuestions wrote: ↑June 12th, 2019, 6:48 am Hi guys,
Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.
The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.
A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.
The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.
1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.
1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).
2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?
3. See 2.
4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
So what is your question again? And why are you asking it now, 75+ years later?
- EthicsQuestions
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
I am not proposing that this is "command by committee", I am proposing that two military officers are discussing what to do in a given situation. There is variations between countries, but it is not unusual that a company of soldiers would have more than one officer - for example platoon officers reporting to the company commander. In the United States the military decisions are made with input from subordinates.There is no such thing as command by committee.
This is actually a significant difference between Russian and American military decision making. Russian commanders make decisions with little or no input from their subordinate officers. The reason for this is that the Russians prefer adequate decisions that are made quickly. The United States prefers the best decisions possible - but these decisions take longer. The Russians are able to make more decisions in the time it takes for a US Commander to make one - and so in a war, the idea is that the US Commander would not be able to respond to the Russians actions fast enough.
I would actually say that in some countries there is a form of 'Command by Committee' with a group of officers coming up with a plan and then presenting the plan to their commander for approval.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
Exactly my point, and this behavior despite the prohibitions is one of the major reasons that the attacking soldiers and their civilian shields would get shelledh_k_s wrote: ↑June 14th, 2019, 5:42 amInsurgents are fond of using civilians as human shields. Happens all the time in Arabia all over now. And in Africa. And in Southwest Asia. And formerly in Southeast Asia. During WW2 it happened in France, Germany, and Italy too. During the Russian Revolution of 1917 it happened there. It may be morally wrong, but as Aristotle pointed out to King Alexander, there are no morals in warfare.LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2019, 1:03 am A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
Fire away, would be the typical response.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
In Iraq the second time, the original mission was to capture the yellow cake. But there was no yellow cake. So they captured Saddam Hussein instead and hanged him. Now the mission is simply to prop up the US-backed regime.
In Iraq the first time, the original mission was to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. I have friends who were in the tank corps of the 1st Marine Division who did precisely that. They butchered a lot of Iraqi soldiers. Civilian deaths by the US coalition were minimal. Most civilian deaths had been murders by the Iraqi army in Kuwait.
In Lebanon, the original mission was just to show the flag. I had friends who were killed at the Marine Barracks there. Both USMC colonels in charge of that expeditionary force were sacked, and the US withdrew.
In Viet Nam (classic original spelling -- two words -- means South Viet) the original mission was to prop up the US-backed regime. That did not go so well. Millions of civilians were killed by the USAF. Nothing can stop the US Air Force. Death from above. Eventually Nixon got peace with honor, was sacked, and G.Ford did not want to re-enter that conflict when the NVA rolled their tanks into Saigon. It was the first confirmed defeat of the US in a US theatre of war in history. Unless you count the War Of 1812. In which case it was the second US defeat.
Between Viet Nam and WW2, the USAF has probably killed more civilians than anyone else in history. But war is hell (W.T. Sherman).
U.S. Infantry on the ground rarely kills civilians. Occasionally at My Lai sure. But not otherwise.
- EthicsQuestions
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
Well, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."
Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?
Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?
The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
As I recall, but I do not know where the specific quote is, it was Aristotle who taught Alexander The Great that "might makes right" especially in warfare. That's why Alexander burned Persepolis to the ground. And Aristotle wrote and spoke and taught extensively on ethics.EthicsQuestions wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 2:40 amWell, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."
Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?
Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?
The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
https://www.ancient.eu/article/214/alex ... ersepolis/
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
To deal with your points in orderEthicsQuestions wrote: ↑June 14th, 2019, 3:59 amI am still new to philosophy/Ethics, but it seems to me that this is a purely legal argument and not an ethical argument. So the civilians are protected by the law - are they protected by ethics also? Would you see an issue if the Geneva Convention did not exist?2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
But that does not really relate to the ethical situation. You can call them tactically stupid, but I am not sure how it helps them deal with the situation they find themselves in. Just as an aside, you often find that decisions that are tactically bad or strategically good and vice versa. Specifically officers need to consider the strategic goals of winning hearts and minds (being close to civilians so you can get to know them and help them with their daily life - this is not always a good tactical decision) as well as the tactical situation (defensive positions on high ground don't really further the strategic goals of hearts and minds and getting amongst the civilians).3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
Why is this so? Would you still agree if the soldiers were conscripts? Letting your soldiers die does not seem like a good tactical decision. Also, even if I accept that a soldiers job is to die so that others don't - is it to die for their own citizens or any citizens in the world? In the scenario the citizens are of a different country.1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
I understand what is expected from a soldier - but I want to know if it is 'right'.
I am curious about the ethical situation facing the two 'friendly' military officers - not whether what the enemy soldiers have done is prohibited or not. Even if certain actions by the friendly officers can be legally justified, this still does tell me whether the action would be morally/ethically correct.A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
1) Ethics are just laws by another name. The idea of the Geneva Convention is to fight wars in an ethical manner, which we define as minimising the suffering of non combatants and even in some circumstances combatants.
2) I'm interested in your belief that you must camp among the civilians to win hearts and minds. If by camping amongst them you bring the war to their front door I don’t think you will hearts and minds; you certainly wouldn’t win mine. This is a common fault of both the US and the UK military, who, unable to find insurgents, have to set themselves up as targets for the insurgents in the belief they can still win the body count and thus the conflict. The list of operations in which this hasn’t worked is long and ongoing.
3) The reason we have an army as opposed to expecting everyone to fight for themselves is that the army consists of the expendable. The civilians are either your less expendable population, plus those you think ethically should be spared the horrors of war like 80 year olds and children; or they are a population you are defending because for political reasons you are treating them as your friends. If they are your friends you should be treating them the same way as you would your own people. If you are in ‘hostile’ territory you aren’t fighting an ethical war you’re invading other peoples land, if you want to be ethical leave.
4) I’m not sure you’re correct about the relative numbers of casualties, what were your sources for this; I can’t find any serious data for much before 1900. However if we accept that in more recent conflict this is the case all it really indicates is that most wars are not fought by ethical people [unsurprisingly]. Wars are about greed, ego and fear, none of which are really ethical emotions, which is why I said that what the military should do and what they do do are rarely the same thing.
- Mark1955
- Posts: 739
- Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
- Location: Nottingham, England.
Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?
I think the point being made is that ethics is what academics discuss over the port after a large lunch/dinner. Soldiers on the ground deal in practicalities one of which is that the Geneva Convention renders them liable for prosecution for their actions, another of which is that they don’t want to die.EthicsQuestions wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 2:40 amWell, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."
Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?
Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?
The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023