What would be the moral choice in this situation?

[Lutheranteach]

If this is the case, could a Christian ever be an effective military commander? If one can’t do evil that will result in good could a commander send a diversionary force knowing full well they will be wiped out in order to bolster the odds of success for actual attack?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

If this is the case, could a Christian ever be an effective military commander?

I like to think I was, thankee.

If one can’t do evil that will result in good could a commander send a diversionary force knowing full well they will be wiped out in order to bolster the odds of success for actual attack?

Those decisions were above my pay grade, but why do you think that’s evil?

 

[fide]

If this is the case, could a Christian ever be an effective military commander? If one can’t do evil that will result in good could a commander send a diversionary force knowing full well they will be wiped out in order to bolster the odds of success for actual attack?

There are moral means to legitimate self-defense and to legitimate national defense. Thus a moral man can be a military commander. His means of waging war will be different from the means chosen by an immoral man.

Similarly, a moral man can be a husband and father, and when called to protect his wife and family he will do so morally and not immorally.

 

[GEddie]

I like to think I was, thankee.

Those decisions were above my pay grade, but why do you think that’s evil?

I think they mean the issue of sending some persons to certain death so that a larger number can break through.

Or, maybe a clearer example, the young man who was ordered to drown to save the mission in the film “U-571”.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[traillius]

sorry, not interested in any version of the balloon debate, including the 4 v.1 train switch. In fact, in the balloon case, I would vote for letting the balloon sink, until it was close enough to the ground for one to drop out with a rope, and climb/drop down nonfatally, then land the balloon, or even wait until it was safe for one or more to jump out. ( 5-8 feet for instance would hurt, but not likely kill, unless landing head first on sharp rocks.) Of course these non evil alternatives would be disallowed by the person setting the hypothetical forward. Its extremely rare outside of movies, philosophy and warfare for there to be a no-win situation. I only know of one nonmilitary historical precedent of any note, that would be the titanic. Detatching hypotheticals from reality is a way of trying force someone to choose some evil, or else do nothing while evil occurs. This never happens ( almost ) in reality. Even in the case of the titanic, the people choosing who went weren’t the real ‘evildoers’ It was those who were arrogant enough to think it couldn’t sink, so they A) ignored dangers and signs that could have saved the ship
b) failed to provide enough space for all passengers( i.e. more lifeboats and pfds.)
The only “positive” that came out of the titanic disaster was the two-fold:
a) never assume a ship can’t sink ( because any ship can)
b) make sure that the total allowed capacity of passengers never exceeds or even equals the space aboard lifeboats, with requisite pfd’s.
Sorry for the hijacking, I just wanted to point out the fundamental break between the train track scenario, and real trains. For the record, if the people were tied there on the tracks, then you would bear no culpability, or very little, because the person tying them there took away your free will in the matter.