Moral Equality

The article by Daniel Strand entitled "Ethical reasoning and military leadership". The author provided an overview of ethical theories and offered a method for thinking about ethical dilemmas. For this essay, consider the following prompt first, then answer the question below. Moral equality of combatants (MEC) is a key element underpinning international humanitarian law (IHL).The MEC is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit war crimes, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. According to a traditional reading of MEC, soldiers should obey their leaders when fighting because they are not well-placed to determine the justness of a war. However, in 2006, philosopher Jeff McMahan began to contest MEC, arguing that soldiers fighting an unjust or illegal war are not morally equal to those fighting in self-defense. According to this revisionist view, a soldier or officer who knows or strongly suspects that their side is fighting an unjust war has a moral obligation not to fight it, unless this would entail capital punishment or some other extreme consequence. A recent (Sagan & Valentino, 2019) study found that the majority of Americans endorse the revisionist view on MEC and many are even willing to allow a war crime against noncombatants to go unpunished when committed by soldiers who are fighting a just war. Question: Do you align more with the traditional or revisionist view of the moral equality on combatants? (My view is more aligned with revisionist for this topic purpose) In responding to this ethical dilemma, justify your answer with using at least one ethical theory: deontology, virtue ethics, and/or consequentialism. Make sure to explain each theory before you use it.