Helping the most people as an ethical obligation?

[EphelDuath]

Suppose a general of X-land in an army gets word that the enemy, Z-land, is going to assault a lightly defended position. The target is lightly defended by X-land troops, who will surely get annihilated by the attack. The Xish general could fortify the position more, but that for some reason is a terrible strategic decision that could cost X-land the war. Also, for some other reason, he cannot recall the fortifying troops. Also assume that the war is a very just war, in which a Z-land victory would result in something gravely immoral, like genocide.

Question: is it immoral if the general lets the troops get killed, since he is considering the war as a whole to be won?

To make the question less abstract and more historical: Winston Churchill during WWII learned from ULTRA that the Germans were going to terror bomb an English city. If he fortified the city from aerial attacks, it could tip off the Germans that their radio code is compromised, thus costing the Allies an enormous strategic benefit that could in fact lose the war. What should he have done?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Suppose a general of X-land in an army gets word that the enemy, Z-land, is going to assault a lightly defended position. The target is lightly defended by X-land troops, who will surely get annihilated by the attack. The Xish general could fortify the position more, but that for some reason is a terrible strategic decision that could cost X-land the war. Also, for some other reason, he cannot recall the fortifying troops. Also assume that the war is a very just war, in which a Z-land victory would result in something gravely immoral, like genocide.

Question: is it immoral if the general lets the troops get killed, since he is considering the war as a whole to be won?

To make the question less abstract and more historical: Winston Churchill during WWII learned from ULTRA that the Germans were going to terror bomb an English city. If he fortified the city from aerial attacks, it could tip off the Germans that their radio code is compromised, thus costing the Allies an enormous strategic benefit that could in fact lose the war. What should he have done?

It wouldn’t be unjust primarily because the soldiers in this case entered into an implicit contract that they will put their lives on the line for their nation - even if it means being similar to a mere Chess pawn.

The only time it would be immoral is if this situation wasn’t a “last resort”. If a better situation arose, and the General didn’t turn to that situation, then it would be immoral. It would also be strategically improper because when you enter a war, you always try to keep the death of your troops to as close to zero as possible.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[John21652]

“To preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. War is full of instances in which it is a man’s duty not to live, but to die. The duty, in case of shipwreck, of a captain to his crew, of the crew to the passengers, of soldiers to women and children, as in the noble case of the Birkenhead these duties impose on men the moral necessity, not of the preservation, but of the sacrifice of their lives for others, from which in no country, least of all, it is to be hoped, in England, will men ever shrink, as indeed, they have not shrunk.”
R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC