Military virtues and superior orders

The purpose of this study is to seek a way of solving the problem of obedience to superior orders, which has been one of the most prominent considerations that ought to make us uneasy about the application of judgments of criminal responsibility to soldiers in combat. For this purpose, the author reviews first the conception of war, war crimes, and rules of war, and considers two types of moral thought as the basic principles for rules of war; absolutist deontology and utilitarianism. Next, the author discusses the problem of the responsibility of the individual for crimes committed by subordinates under orders of superiors, and examines three doctrines as the answers to this problem: the respondeat superior doctrine, the absolute liability doctrine, and the mens rea principle. But none of these is considered as an appropriate answer. Supposing that the key to the solution of the problem of superior orders lies in the virtues of the soldier who is in a dilemma, the author attempts to examine soldiers' virtues, especially the supreme military virtues required for officers as military professionals. He reviews three kinds of virtues which have been regarded as the supreme military virtues; loyalty, obedience, and moral integrity. Pointing out their inappropriateness, however, he suggests as an alternative the virtue of historical insight which can be defined as moral reflection based upon historical understanding. He tries to show that by this virtue, the soldier's choice or decision in the dilemma can be more clearly justified than any other virtues.