Killing
There are many bad things you can do, from them, murder is the worst. It is final. Murder steals life, and there is nothing how to correct it or take it back.
So, if we want to create universal moral rules, murder should be on top. We can see everything else as a derivation of murder (taking away someone's life). Injuring takes away the future quality of life, theft takes away past life spent acquiring resources, and so on.
After a murder, we should examine our moral code and see if some rules should be updated to prevent it. A lot of time, there is nothing to do. Some people are evil, and a moral code cannot stop them. But sometimes, we as a society tolerate something we should not.
I think that there is an example of the problem. Some killing is happening now, and our blame and moral norms are not blaming the right people in the right amount.
When can you kill?
I think that there are justifiable reasons to kill. You should be able to protect yourself, your family, and your possessions against harm and theft. You should ensure that you, or your work, would not be directly used to harm others (possibly by killing evil officers). Moreover, freeing people from involuntary forced labor is justifiable. (A big question I skip is: what about revenge killing?)
Even when the killing is justifiable, you should avoid it if possible. If you start a fight and then kill in self-defense, this doesn't count.
If you kill in self-defense, the decision to kill is yours. If your decision is wrong, you take the blame. But there is a question: How much killing can you do on behalf of someone else? It opens a lot of configurations of the problem.
The simple one is that you get hired to listen to commands and then kill according to them. Then the blame shifts from you to your superior? No?
I don't think so. When you decide to get into a contract like this, ensure at least two things. First, before every harmful action, you should evaluate if it is justifiable. Second, before enlisting, you should ensure that your employer will use you properly (not for offense instead of defense).
If the work does not fulfill both points and you kill, the blame falls on you. If you clear both conditions, but the situation changes, you should be able to get away from the contract immediately. Otherwise, you risk that you kill.
Ukraine: whom to blame (more)
There is a war in Ukraine. It's easy to point fingers. Usually, they point to Putin. But is Putin the right person to blame? We can also point to the people behind Putin pushing for the war. But we can also point to ordinary Russians: they lived in a corrupt country and did nothing about it.
If we go in this direction, we should realize that we also don't live in a perfect country. There is a real chance that someone evil will rule us someday. Yet, we are complacent with structures that would commit similar atrocities.
By not blaming the Russians for the war, we admit they are helpless against the oppressive government. By this, we don't need to do anything about the dangers of our political system. But I don't want to go in this direction (I might try to do it later). I want to blame someone else.
I want to blame ordinary soldiers. They are the ones that physically pull the trigger. They have the final decision to kill someone.
It's weird
If you are a soldier, your job description is: if my boss tells me I kill people. Anyone else who does the same is criminal.
We don't see them as criminals. School told us that being a soldier is brave. That they do a valuable service, that they protect us. We don't tell them they might have to kill someone who does not deserve to be. We don't have a strategy of what to do when a soldier thinks his orders are morally wrong.
We have a problem with propaganda. We think our leaders are moral, want the best for us, and always react selflessly. If we talk about building roads, we know politicians are corrupt, but we still let them decide about war. And this is the place where they can do the most irreparable harm.
When a soldier sees enough wrong things, he can try to desert. It is a capital offense. So by our laws, we are forcing other people to suspend their moral judgment.
Correct information
You can say that you agree with all military involvements of your country. I agree with you, but the question is: How brainwashed are we? Yes, any military action supports some people, sometimes directly us, sometimes people more similar to us against others.
If our country is under attack, it's good to defend. But now, nato's military is on peace missions around the world. Even if they don't directly kill other people, they are foreign soldiers in a foreign land. Maybe they are invited by a majority of people there, Or maybe by the educated minority, Or maybe by the minority that gives us what we want. How much do we know?
If we look at Russians living in Ukraine, I see why they want to be part of Russia. Russia is richer. (When I wrote about different reasons, I got lost, the next post will be about nationalism and the war.)
Proposed change
So how should we view soldiers, and what should we change in our approach to them?
First, we need to warn them. The things that you do in the army might be horrible and wrong. You are giving away your conscience. If you gave it to the unreliable person, it would be as if you would do the wrong thing yourself. Be aware that you might be a little bit brainwashed. You've been told at school that what we do is right. It might not be. Moreover, the regime can change, and you might get trapped in the army. (For Czechs, I would remind you that your ultimate leader is Miloš Zeman.)
Second, we should make desertion more acceptable. It might not do too much, I read how ordinary people committed atrocities, but it is at least a little bit.
Third, you (as a civilian) should be ready to defend yourself or your neighbors. It should counterbalance at least a little bit of the harm that the army gets.
Fourth, we should emphasize that what you learned in school about politics is all propaganda. You didn't learn it because it's true. You learned this because it serves someone.
Fifth, a prospective soldier should know where he can operate without being offensive. Generally, a soldier can fight in his home country. He knows the situation and knows how dangerous invaders are. But going abroad, where he is unfamiliar with the situation, might force him to be on the wrong side of the conflict.
Why it is impractical
Our moral views evolved over a long time. People who were not willing to kill others were often killed themselves and replaced. We are successors of people who were at least a little good at killing.
It will probably take a long time before we can change our views. It is dangerous to change them unilaterally. We might easily fall prey to some country that cherishes its army and is willing to conquer.
The country willing to exploit (militarily or differently) weaker countries has an advantage. So we would lose for playing nice.
Conclusion
I think that we don't apply moral principles consistently. We exclude soldiers from the necessity of thinking about their violent actions. We should push them to be aware of that and judge them for joining the army.
Ultimately, blaming soldiers for their excesses would lead to a more peaceful world, but in the meantime, it is impractical. So if you go to an army, make sure to be on the right side and beware of propaganda.