Inter arma enim silent lēgēs

In times of war, laws fall silent

Which is telling, don't you think?

A war is a state in which we break, if I'm not mistaken, the most sacred of laws: thou shalt not kill. To try and maintain law would be like the joke where someone ties a knot in the elephant's tail to stop the elephant from passing through the eye of the needle.

Nevertheless I've heard the term "rules of engagement" often enough to realize that soldiers wish to be moral despite their role in the transgression of the most universal of moral injunctions - don't kill. I'm not a soldier and I wonder how their training regimen looks like. Are they simply trained to be killing machines or does the curriculum also involve other subjects like ethical treatment of non-combatants, etc?

Wars are usually associated with atrocities, crimes against humanity. Soldiers are people and they're in life and death situations. Invariably, worse thing follow. What is rape/torture/anything to a man who's life is based on kill/be killed?

All is not lost though. Modern warfare, despite the tendency towards ungentlemanly stealth and ambush, is much much better than Genghiz Khan's hordes. Phrases like "minimize collateral damage" or "non-combatants", "tactical nuclear bombs" suggests that soldiers are supposed to follow a code of conduct. The US army has performed quite well even though there were isolated cases of bad behavior.

I also like it when the army assists in the rebuilding of the cities they destroy instead of just being instruments of destruction.

This is a very unreasonable demand on anyone let alone soldiers. To be good in the midst of a situation that is, by definition, a suspension of moral law.

A soldier has a tough life.

These questions all boil down to one main inquiry; do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? — SethRy

I don't know. Sounds complicated to me.

Does the soldier who shot your enemy for you deserve respect?

I know it's not that simple but if you believe soldiers then one of the main reasons behind joining the army is the desire to protect the country and that's you isn't it?

I could be completely wrong here because I haven't interviewed soldiers myself and it could be that reasons may differ with the individual.

Perhaps we could ask another question;

Does the soldier who shot your enemy, raped his wife and tortured his children deserve respect?

It boils down to morality doesn't it. A soldier must do fine balancing act between a hero and a villain. It's not easy especially since he's already leaning towards the side of villainy by killing.

The thesis, not yours, but the question in the thread is so binary. Let's say it's some soldier fighting what is basically a muddle of a war, like WW1. Does the German soldier deserve respect? Well, he's a person. He went through some tough experiences most likely. I can respect him for those things. Or respect the fact that he did. If he acted bravely and protected his fellow soldiers, I can respect that. If he bought the whole patriotism thing, well, I don't really respect that. Though I also know how brainwarshed people were back then. And out of respect for how tough it is to extricate yourself from upbringing and culture, I find it hard to condemn someone for that. I can respect the draw to not having others think you are dishonorable. I can respect the self-care in not wanting to go to prison. If the war had been more clearly immmoral for the germans, then there is less respect. I mean, how does one weigh in with a single answer?

I mean, how does one weigh in with a single answer? — Coben

It's just my two cents. Nothing more. Thanks for reading. :smile:

Yeah, sure. I wasn't really disagreeing (I don't think). I just decided to come into the thread in response to you. I had this sneaking feeling if I started with anyone else it would get all snarky after a few posts.

but the question in the thread is so binary. — Coben

That's right. Is there a grey area between respect and disrespect? I think there is but usually people seem to have limits e.g. Hitler's vegetarianism doesn't seem to mitigate his unfortunate notoriety as a mass murder. Similarly, that Jesus/Buddha/Moses/Mohamnad had to answer nature's call just like any normal person doesn't vitiate their divine nature.

what you don't respect people who pee?

War, is a state of lawlessness — a disregard to the law. Therefore, there is no murder, and technically every other immoral action, in the duration of the war. — SethRy

Are you suggesting that morality is dependent on the law? If there is no law against torturing small children, is it then not immoral?

what you don't respect people who pee? — Coben

My analogy was bad. Sorry.

Violent autocrats, warlords and dictators don’t fear the moral force of pacifism. They fear the physical force of violence. The people who march in the streets to protest against war, advocate for peace, can only do so because someone—the soldier—is committing violence on their behalf.

the citizens are expected to follow the law, but they are not expected to know the law. — god must be atheist

I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse" was the general idea. No?

Oh, I was just playing.

or on the behalf of oil companies and the arms industry. Or a mad politician. Or partly on racism, partly for the finance industry and partly because a president wants a second term and just messed up something. Then there really, really wild cases like WW1.

Are Soldiers, of whom fuel the scope of war, responsible for immoral actions that occur without the central guidance of the law? — SethRy

The upshot of what follows is that soldiers are not significant moral agents in wars.

Who, in fact, determines and fuels the scope of war--soldiers or others?

I define "soldiers" as the grades of military who actually engage in the messy business of fighting. Above the soldiers are layers of "command" who issue orders, but are not themselves fighting. Behind the soldiers are all sorts of "support" operations that are absolutely essential to large-scale war.

Above the military command stands the civilian government (in most countries) who regulates and pays for the prosecution of war.

It seems to me that soldiers are least responsible, but most intimately involved. Command is most responsible, and least intimately involved. Support is more intimately involved in the supply chain the closer to the front one is.

The only thing a solder can do to stake out his own moral ground is conscientiously object to war, and refuse to serve. Once one agrees to be a soldier, a great deal of personal executive agency is lost. Obey or else. A few disobedient soldiers will be shot to make the point. Civilians have many more choices, but in the case of total war, their options too are constrained.

IF you are looking for first causes, look to the Oval Office, the Congress, the Kremlin office of the Premier, the Central Committee, the Parliament, the Palace of the Maximum Leader, or whatever constitutes the civilian government of society. Even a modest war requires the diversion of large shares of civilian wealth for the conduct of a war. The United States has spent 6 trillion dollars for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. Other countries have, at various times, spent equally vast sums to pursue war.

How does "the central guidance of the law" cease to apply in times of war?

The civilian government will pass whatever laws are required to prosecute a war in the desired style. Limited War or Total War, the cost has to be raised from civilians -- there isn't any other source. Will it be necessary to kill women, men, and children? Legality can be arranged, no problem.

Furthermore, are soldiers different people in different places? — SethRy

Yes and no, which applies to all of us. We assume different roles (maybe personas) in different contexts, yet we remain the same person. The soldiers personally shooting Jews into mass graves in Ukraine in 1942-43 were later upstanding citizens, husbands, and fathers--bearing scars, no doubt, but more or less normal.

I thought "ignorance of the law is no excuse" was the general idea. No? — Bitter Crank

That is the paradox of the British Commonwealth Legal system, or whatever else it's called. Because of precedence, and because it's so huge, nobody knows the law. Legal professionals will openly admit they don't know this or that branch of the law. It's a complete mess. Nobody knows the law, yet you are supposed to obey it, and you're right, BC, ignorance of it is no excuse from guilt.

So wtf.

Common Law forms a significant part of US law, as I understand anyway, and while there are vast stretches of arid, dust-drifting drabness in the law like real estate law or tax law, the commonest parts of common law are knowable: citizens are responsible for their actions; citizens have rights; government officials are not above the law; the state cannot take your property without fair compensation--stuff like that.

People are supposed to know that if the sign says, speed limit 55 mph, then that is what it means, not 60 or 70 mph.

You did not recite one single law. You recited a whole bunch of common sense things that you think the law is.

The law is much more complicated than stating rules and seeing if someone disobeyed those rules. They have to be proven in court, and there are exacting rules in court behaviour and court dynamics that nobody other than a lawyer knows. And that is just the beginning of it. Personality of lawyer, client and jury or judge play a large rule in law. The same alleged crime can be found to be true or untrue by similar but differing set of court players (jury, judge, attorneys, witnesses).

The law is not just to find the truth and deliver justice; the law is to convince the decision makers either way. This can result in a verdict which is a far cry from actual justice, as what the court accepts as truth, can be totally false and untrue.

Does every player in court know ahead of time, how the judges and the jury will decide? If the answer is no, then nobody knows the law.

==============================

You mentioned a few areas of law that are not part of the commonly known laws. But they still need to be obeyed by every citizen, as ignorance is no excuse, right? Why do you want me to disregard a large area of law? I put to you, that you only want to convince me to discount the importance of obeying obscure and boring laws in order to prove your point.

There must be something wrong with the Internet tonight, considering the way you read what I wrote.

a maximum speed of 55, 65, or 75 mph (depending on the state) on state and federal highways (and less, if so posted) is not a suggestion, it is the actual law. On the Interstate, when you cross a border, one will quite often see big white signs saying "STATE LAW: MN Law forbids the use of hand held phones while driving".

A law is a law, numbered, titled, and printed in black and white. What is complicated is the legal system. It isn't the law that seeks to find the truth; that task is up to the courts. The courts are governed by a set of laws directing that courts operate in a certain way. The Legislatures write the law, and and the civilian government enforce the law.

Does every player in court know ahead of time, how the judges and the jury will decide? If the answer is no, then nobody knows the law. — god must be atheist

Only in a rigged system would everyone know ahead of time what the judges and jury will decide. Now, there have been rigged courts (all over the world) but courts are not as a rule rigged.

Real Estate Law, or probate law, or tax law, and so on may be extremely complicated which is why there are people called lawyers who take classes in tax law, probate law, real estate law, tort law, and so on, so they can tell clients what is legal and what is not. Like, a smart lawyer will tell you that mass murder is illegal. So is counterfeiting, robbing banks, burning houses down, or stealing high-end steak from the meat market. Lawyers are smart that way.

a maximum speed of 55, 65, or 75 mph (depending on the state) on state and federal highways (and less, if so posted) is not a suggestion, it is the actual law. — Bitter Crank

This is not the law. It is your loosely transcribed ideation of what the law is. The law you can look up in the law books... I am tempted to look up the law on speed limits. If you give me approx. 30 minutes, I shall come back with a quote from the Highway Traffic Act (Canada), as I don't live in the USA. You will see what the law looks like.

This is a piece of the Minnesota Statutes on speed limits.

169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR.
Subdivision 1.Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
Subd. 1a.License revocation for extreme speed. The driver's license of a person who violates any speed limit established in this section, by driving in excess of 100 miles per hour, is revoked for six months under section 171.17, or for a longer minimum period of time applicable under section 169A.53, 169A.54, or 171.174.
§Subd. 2.Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful:
(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district;
(2) 65 miles per hour on noninterstate expressways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 18b, and noninterstate freeways, as defined in section 160.02, subdivision 19;
(3) 55 miles per hour in locations other than those specified in this section;
(4) 70 miles per hour on interstate highways outside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation;
(5) 65 miles per hour on interstate highways inside the limits of any urbanized area with a population of greater than 50,000 as defined by order of the commissioner of transportation;
(6) ten miles per hour in alleys;
(7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and
(8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district.
(b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies.
(c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies.
(d) Notwithstanding section 609.0331 or 609.101 or other law to the contrary, a person who violates a speed limit established in this subdivision, or a speed limit designated on an appropriate sign under subdivision 4, 5, 5b, 5c, or 5e, by driving 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable speed limit, is assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25.
Subd. 2a.Increased speed limit when passing. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, the speed limit is increased by ten miles per hour over the posted speed limit when the driver:
(1) is on a two-lane highway having one lane for each direction of travel;
(2) is on a highway with a posted speed limit that is equal to or higher than 55 miles per hour;
(3) is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction of travel; and
(4) meets the requirements in section 169.18.
Subd. 3.Reduced speed required. (a) The driver of any vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on any street or highway, when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
(b) A person who fails to reduce speed appropriately when approaching or passing an authorized emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights flashing on a street or highway shall be assessed an additional surcharge equal to the amount of the fine imposed for the speed violation, but not less than $25.