How can we answer the moral question – to what extent should the lives of our soldiers be endangered in war?
Discussions of morality rely on an examination of ideas, rather than facts and data, and philosophy professors discuss the treatment of the innocent, self-risk, proportionate response, and the like.
Professors can present their argument using complicated words, theoretical definitions, and quotes from reputable philosophers, but in practice they and the philosophers they rely on express their opinions, and they do not base them on facts and data – for example, the effect of policy on the duration of the fighting and the outcome of the fighting.
At the same time, ordinary citizens also have an opinion about risking the lives of soldiers in war, and their opinion is based on their own logic, and on ideas and beliefs that prevail in the community to which they belong.
It is possible that citizens examine the moral issue from a narrower perspective, but in practice there is no essential difference between the claim of philosophy professors and the claim of citizens, since in both cases the conclusion itself is based on opinions and beliefs, rather than experiments and facts.
In physics or medicine, experiments decide who is right and who is wrong, but when there are opinions before us and not dry data, how can we decide? How do we determine who is right and who is wrong?
Jim Barksdale, the former CEO of Netscape, said at one facilitation meeting with his employees: "If we have data, let's look at the data, and if all we have are opinions, let's go with my opinion."
If the answer to these moral questions is not based on data and facts but on opinions, whose opinion will we go with? How do we determine whether the professor of philosophy is right in his opinion, or whether it is the ordinary citizen who is right?
In light of this, the decision must be left to the soldiers who risk their lives, and the opinion of the professor who sits in his air-conditioned room and does not risk anything is not the one that should decide such sensitive issues.
As a result, theoretical discussions in the studio or in the newspaper may also need to be reduced. Given that there is no real possibility of bringing fighters from the field to present their moral position on the matter. The discussion in the studio will change dramatically if we talk to those who bear the implications of these theoretical discussions in their own bodies. Clearly, soldiers' place is not on a panel of commentators, but perhaps we should seriously consider the impact of these discussions on the ground.
If the answer to these moral questions is not based on data and facts but on opinions, whose opinion will we go with? How do we determine whether the professor of philosophy is right in his opinion, or whether it is the ordinary citizen who is right?
This issue is not unusual, in the modern era there has been an increase in officials who make fateful decisions while having zero personal risk and responsibility. Thinkers are very important in presenting different ideas in a profound wayDiscussions on moral matters rely on personal ideas, rather than facts and data. The gap between theoretical discussions and conditions on the ground is large, and the implications are far-reaching and valuable, although in recent decades this too has become rare and subject to external influences.
Of course, there are legal and political considerations, and they must be discussed and taken into account, but the full complexity is in the hands of the commanders.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us