Why is a soldier’s life valued less than others and do ethics really matter when a major conflict breaks out?

When we think of conflicts over history, even the more recent ones that are still ongoing, there is an overarching sense through news reports and in everyday culture that if a combatant (Defence Force member under instruction) is killed, it is generally considered “a reasonable outcome of war”. However if a non-combatant (civilian population) is killed during the same conflict it is considered a much higher burden to society. During a large conflict there are nightly reports on “horrific” civilian deaths, however many times there is little mention of the number of military members killed over the same period.

In these modern times how can any death during conflict be justified? One of the foundation principals of being a good and righteous member of society is the stated ethical notions of:

• Do not harm,
• Do not kill / murder,
• Be an upstanding member of society.

The above list almost sounds like a religious edict, however ethics should not be confined to only the religious. Religions may possibly advocate higher ethical standards, however ethics are not only applied to religious people. The principals of ethics applies to all in a civilised society.

To this end following the law (although it may incorporate ethical standards) may not be the same being ethical. Extreme examples of this would be pre civil war slavery laws in the United States or Nazi Germany proceeding the Second World War.

In most civilised societies, if I were to shoot another person dead on the street, no doubt I would suffer the consequences of my action and be held to account in a court of law. However if I am under the command of a countries Defence Force then I can do the same thing and it is somehow considered acceptable. In becoming a soldier, according to the Orthodox View, “one gains the right to kill other soldiers but loses one’s own immunity to being killed by soldiers of the opposing side.”

It all comes down to what is considered lawful. More specifically what is considered a ‘lawful killing’. Which I find a strange concept in itself as it’s up to the country of origin where the soldier resides that decides what a lawful killing is. If we look at the current Russia / Ukraine conflict, the majority of the western world considers the Russian action unlawful. However in the eyes of the Russian Federation this would be considered not only lawful, it would be considered a patriotic duty and something to celebrate.

Ultimately if you look back over past conflicts doesn’t the victor always write the history books and it somehow ends up being considered a “just” war from their perspective. This most jarring example of this is when former President of the United States of America – Harry Truman justified the dropping of the atomic bomb on tens of thousands Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This justification came from the extreme destruction causing the Japanese surrender, which in turn would save millions of lives over the course of an extended conflict (at least according to President Truman). However I am sure the Japanese civilians in these cities would have had a completely different view on the situation.

On the case of non-combatant deaths (civilian collateral damage) – I find this term a little vague also as we consider a soldier “ethically” ok to be killed in battle, even if the soldier is conscripted, does not agree with the war or simply sits at a desk in an office somewhere ultimately supporting the war effort. Basically because the soldier wears a uniform the killing is considered to be “just”. However we consider civilian deaths to be profoundly different, even if that civilian may be the politician that has sent the troops to war or a member of the public that may support the war effort in other ways, such as helping with supply and logistics, or even patriotic media coverage.

By that way of thinking a young Defence Force member (combatant) that is coerced into going to war and holds no malice towards their enemy, their death is considered to be acceptable / lawful. Whereas the actual political leader who sent that young person into the conflict zone is somehow absolved of that very heavy burden and their death would be considered ‘unlawful’ as a non-combatant.

Who is considered to be a combatant / non-combatant in historical conflicts (such as traditional Armies) is usually quite clear. Many other times when the conflict takes on an insurgency and there are not traditional armies involved, these roles are much less defined, such as a civilian who is taking up arms in defence of life or property. From an ethical standpoint we now may need to look at not who is a combatant or not, it may be more prudent to consider who would be classed as an innocent vs non-innocent party to the conflict.

If we were to consider who is innocent then that notion throws all the previous thoughts about who is killed during a conflict. Although the politician may not be in a distinctive uniform, they most certainly were somewhat responsible for many of the deaths during the conflict. Same as the civilian members who fed advancing soldiers and helped with logistics to get the tanks, weapons and soldiers to the front line. Are they not also now considered non-innocent and fair game?

On the other side of this - Just because somebody takes up arms during a conflict does not necessarily mean that they are considered non-innocent. Consider the local farmer who has a family to look after. They arm themselves as a form of protection from the advancing troops. If this farmer was to try and defend their land, technically are they now considered to be a combatant? Many people would think that this action to protect their family is an honourable intention, however the lines here are starting to blur. Do you need to be still on your property to be considered still an innocent party? What If you chased the invaders down the street? What is you were part a local militia and were roaming the streets? At what point does this famer defending their family become a legitimate military target?

The alternate version of this is a junior member of the Defence Force, they may have been conscripted or could have joined up voluntarily well before any conflict has taken place. This member may have been from a poor rural town with no job prospects, so as many young men and women do in this sort of situation they join up with the military. The pay is usually quite good and they can now support themselves and their family. This young person that joined the military may have been the nicest person growing up, helped other people in need, volunteers their free time and holds no real malice towards any other country, creed or race. This member enlists, completes some basic training and then all of a sudden war breaks out. In this scenario six months after joining up with the military to make a better life for their family, this upstanding young member of society is now on the front line of a conflict they did not want or have any sway in the direction it takes.

Yes this young person did sign on to join the country’s military, but as many of us are aware that have served (myself included), there are a myriad of reasons why you would join the military and most of these are to do with the opportunities service life brings. Seldom have I met a Defence Force member that joined up to fight another nation or army (at least in Australia, this may be different for times such as the United States of America post 9/11). If this Defence member is killed in combat, yes they may be mourned by their family and colleagues, however the overall perception is this was a lawful killing and considered to be a ‘justifiable death’.
Consider the previous scenario vs a career criminal who would generally be considered “unethical” from the standpoint of their action. This person may have been involved in some of the worst type of unethical behaviours that civil society has (murder, abuse, torture), however they happen to live in an area that has fast become a conflict zone (as we have seen recently in Ukraine, this can happen to civilian populations at a fast rate). Yes this person may live a life that would generally be considered unethical, however they would also be considered a “non-combatant” and an “innocent party” to any impending conflict between larger powers at play.

For this example a stray missile hits a commercial area and this person is also killed on the same day as the previous junior Defence Member. Would this person not be mourned as “terrible loss of civilian life” and many countries and civilised society would be outraged at this “injustice”. However this same proclamation would not be afforded to the young Defence member who also lost their life. Even though all things considered the young Defence member would be the greatest overall loss to society at large.

As a Defence member myself I have always struggled with this concept. Although I love my country and would honour the oath I took on enlistment, I like many others joined the Defence Force to mainly gain a career, good pay and job security. I was one of those people who enlisted from a small town and generally speaking I hold no ill will against any race, creed or country. However like the example above if my time was up and I was called into a conflict which I did not want or have any influence over, I may also meet my ultimate fate.

Just because someone wears a uniform and is part of the military machine does not speak for the person they are and it should not in some way minimise the tragedy of the death, especially when they had no influence in the actual conflict or when they are sent there. Perhaps the politicians that made the decision in the first place should lead from the front line? No doubt junior soldiers would be sure to send those extra supplies and ammunition to the front when requested.

Holding oneself to a high ethical and moral standard is considered to be an endearing quality in a person and something to strive for. However in context of being part of a larger conflict of nations, the mere fact that a junior member of the force has a good moral compass does not in any way change the outcome, which ultimately may cost that member their life. Do ethics matter in a large conflict? Perhaps from an overall optics standpoint to help win the hearts and minds, however drilled down to a per person basis the life choices made are insignificant to any broader conflict.

Is this fair? Surely not.

Is this the reality? You bet it is.