The Things They Carried Morality Analysis

Moral degradation is a necessary evil in order to survive through war; therefore, construction of a new morality is inescapable. Within the stories in The Things They Carried, soldiers are required to do so during and after the Vietnam War. War breeds monstrosities and wanton cruelty. When faced with two evils, picking the lesser immoral option is not necessarily something to be frowned upon. This is what separates a soldier’s morality and a civilian’s morality. Civilians see things through a black-and-white perspective; fundamental standards that must be obeyed to the letter. Aggressive behavior (e.g. homicide, robbery, extortion, and so forth) is continually censured and punished accordingly through a fair and just system. There is no such
He does not want to fight an unjustifiable war in Vietnam, but he does not want to be thought of as a coward. In this case, people would flee the country to escape enlistment. O’Brien decides to stay in fear of what his family and community may think of cowardice, not for nationalism. After all, American society has placed so much emphasis on patriotism than being righteous. This fear of shame motivates the reluctant O’Brien and others to participate in the war. This experience is emblematic of the moral dilemma between the misguided expectations of the group and an individual’s personal beliefs. It may seem trivial for soldiers to concern themselves about social acceptance, but it is a means to clear their heads in a chaotic time. Consequentially, they are more than willing to do irrational, absurd, and/or dangerous things to achieve that clarity. For example: Curt Lemon, another soldier, removed a perfectly healthy tooth to mitigate the perpetual shame he felt from fainting in a previous encounter with the dentist (O’Brien, 55). The combination of the stress of war, the unfamiliarity of a foreign country, and the inexperience of youth create psychological hazards that only intensify the innate dangers of war. Unfortunately, this is an unavoidable development in war. In order to preserve their social standing, soldiers willingly went against their
However, as noted before, this reconciliation is difficult due to the soldier’s obligation to everyday violence war requires. In response, Jeff McMahan, a professor of moral philosophy of the University of Oxford, stated this, “soldiers do no wrong even if their cause is unjust” (Ryan, 11). Practically, soldiers are given an ethical pardon because of the moral equality between soldiers. On the basis of moral equality of combatants (MEC), opposing soldiers would also be justified to kill even if they have no genuine cause (Finkelstein, 184). This means that soldiers of the aggressor country are not responsible for their killings, while soldiers of the defending country have no special protection from being killed. Comparatively, the actions and cause of a soldier are independent of one another; thus, the two should not be used interchangeably. It has also been pointed out that this may encourage more unjust wars due to a lack of consequences for the soldiers and lack of influence by the citizens (McMahan, 693). By contrast, if citizens came to believe that participation in an unjust war was wrong, soldiers would be more hesitant in fighting those wars, and governments more reluctant to initiate those wars for fear of the resistance it may bring. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow the soldiers this moral leeway with the consent of the citizens. Nevertheless,