Collateral Murder, and the Question of Morality.

Ok, Has anybody seen this? As a warning; if you are not ok with watching disturbing footage, and this is disturbing DO NOT WATCH THIS.




Ok, to explain for anybody who didn't watch this. It involves US soldiers being engaged in the city, while two blocks away an Apache helicopter sees five men with guns. The helicopter engages and kills all the men, unbeknownst to the pilot or gunner there was a reporter with them, he is shot. Upon the soldiers arriving from blocks away to secure the scene, a van arrives; the Apache engages the van and destroys it and kills a man crawling away, also a reporter. In the van were two children, US soldier Ethan McCord wants to take the wounded kids to base, he is declined and the kids were sent to a Iraqi hospital, and when McCord wanted to speak with a therapist, he is told to "Get the sand out of his vagina" he then resigned from the army. McCord now speaks out against the US mission. This was released by wikileaks and the buzz was that the pilot and soldiers were insensitive. But this is war, is it necessarily an unexpected event, no. Things will happen, but people have varying opinions.

          So this becomes a question of morality, were the men in the helicopter in the wrong? The US Armed Forces Rules of Engagement state:
The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm
This is to say that, because the men the Apache engaged had weapons, the helicopter had permission to engage them with lethal force. But was engaging the van proper? According to the Rules of Engagement: Yes. But morally, were the actions of the US forces proper or upright? This is where the question gets a little more heated. Morality is relative (meaning it is not black and white) but if it is relative, how do we tell if it is right or wrong? Also, is it at all possible to determine to what extent if any we apply our rules or morals set out by society, to Iraq and the actions of US soldiers? Morals were originally something created and carried out by religious bodies. One of the earliest forms of law is based off of Moses' 10 commandments. This raises the question, what is secular morality? What do us base secular morality off of?

         One of the big questions when one compares religion and science is with regard to human morality and what kind of code we should live by. The original conception is that there is no direct link between science and morality. This wall is being broken down by new-age scientists and new-age thinkers. For example, Sam Harris. I will keep my opinion of Harris' other ideas to myself for the sake of neutrality but he does have some great ideas involving morality, specifically in his book: The Moral Landscape.




After hearing ideas like this one, it raises the question of morality again. And with regard to human wellbeing and general healthiness; it would seem the actions for the men in the helicopter were morally wrong. Actually I do not know if these men were wrong, what if the truck was packed with explosives and its intent was to kill soldiers, in that case; the helicopter would be rewarded for its actions. But what do you think?