@dappled_leaves That is a question each person must answer for oneself.
Being something each individual has to choose for themselves, can leave morality with no real footing. If someone believes wasting a whole city with everyone in it is the best strategy because dead people can’t fight back, or support those fighting you then it is good tactics and thus moral.
I have no answer, because I have not been faced with the question in a real-life context, but in such a situation, I would choose.
Would that be fair to say that no matter what best morality someone believes in peace times, in war or other given situations that morality they have is not so innate, or germane to their being that they can’t ignore, breech, or modify it if holding to it might create a disadvantageous situation somehow?
@MrGrimm888 The reality was far more disturbing on the ground. Mutilated , burnt , blown to pieces were enemy combatants, and civilians, women and children. Real people, who had real lives, hopes, dreams, pets, bills to pay and I assume the desire to live.
The rub is, if one can view their foe as less than human, less than people with pets, paying bills, treating head colds, etc. then blowing them into pizza toppings is not immoral; easily justified that they would do it to you first of you did not do it to them. If one believe an enemy will kill them, then any tactic to make them say uncle, would be highly accepted.
He also spoke of how easy it was to kill so many troops at night using night vision. Many enemies were dispatched running confused in the dark.
Was it cheating, dirty fighting, or good tactics? I saw a documentary once about the Roman conquest of the UK, and they said how the inhabitance who knew the terrain would ambush the Roman soldiers, shooting them in the back etc. then dashing away into the hills and forest. The Romans not use to such fighting thought it was dirty fighting and less chivalrous than to meet your foe face-to-face in open combat. In war, the goal is to win, so if using any means possible, even if you have to use technology far superior than your foe that leaves them near zero chance to defend themselves, is it being a poor sport like a pro boxer beating up an old man with arteritis, or a coo of a tactic to vanquish your enemy without suffering much casualties?