An Ethical Dilemma: Rescue Mission?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I've always found a lot of ethical dilemmas presented in philosophy rather contrived since they not only provide the consequences to our possible decisions (a type of foresight we generally lack in real life) but further go to reduce those decisions to multiple choice.

So I thought I'd try presenting an ethical dilemma which isn't so contrived in this way. Here goes, and please forgive me for anyone with a real military background if it's blatantly absent understanding of military knowledge (something I admittedly lack):

You are a commander of an army and a small group of your soldiers have become stranded in deep enemy territory. Intelligence reports suggest that there is an extremely low probability of successfully rescuing the soldiers (that is to say, this will likely be a suicide mission), but some of your troops have bravely volunteered to take on a rescue mission.

What course of action in this scenario do you believe to be the most ethical choice and why?

Updates

4 mo

If there are any variables omitted in the dilemma that might impact your decision, like precisely who the soldiers are that are stranded, please feel free to include that as part of your rationale.

Updates

4 mo

Also as a bonus if people want to contemplate an alternative scenario, what if no soldiers volunteer to attempt a rescue?

[Soteris]

While I do not mind sacrificing troops, as that is kind of their entire job, I would mostly just see this as an opportunity. So if I was just to take the spirit of your ethical dilema then no I would not expend military resources to rescue soldiers based on nothing else but morality but there is so much military advantages you can get from a situation like this even if you do not succeed.

As a military commander you want to maintain the initiative so that the enemy is stuck simply reacting to what you are doing and the morale of your troops is perhaps the most important aspect as it determines how well they fight, follow orders and how quickly they falter. Having an objective, such as rescuing troops, that your men are motivated to do is a great way to have them perform at a higher level and would allow you as the commander to accomplish far more with your current resources than otherwise.

Even if there is no actual way to reach the encircled troops and even if it costs you a lot of casualties, if done correctly that would be in exchange for more than you would otherwise have gained.

As such I would have definitely tried to break through to the encircled troops but not for ethical reasons nor even with the expectations for success. I would simply look at it from the point of view of using what I have as effectively as I can.

To end this rambling I am just going to say that ethics has nothing to do in a military. The closest you get is navigating the ethical concerns of those around you. The reason why you dont have your troops firing on a hospital is because other people will have moral objections to it which in turn manifests itself as actual problems. You respect these consequences rather than the actual moral questions. It is a very cold and brutal place where you have to pretend there is more humanity than there really is because that is simply more efficient.

[Effably]

The main consideration here is strategic, not ethical.
Is the cost of attempting to save them and losing both groups worse or better than the impact to morale if we do not try? What will weaken our group's ability to perform more? If we were a role model: Which would be preferable as a principle?

Generally we'll save them. Or gas up how amazing they are and that they are trained for this. They can save themselves and our standard procedures for how they should do so will apply.

Because your problem asks us to adopt a role and this role exists with already understood priorities there is rarely going to be any ethical differences in replies.
This is why many issues are a little contrived. They are intended to be hypotheticals that do not allow us to lean on preconceived notions.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Something that has me curious is where you'd see the distinctions between strategic and ethical. I tend to find them quite blurry since I figure whatever strategy that has the best likelihood of protecting our people (factoring in morale as you mentioned as well as leading by example) from a consequentialist perspective the most ethical.

[Effably]

Here the simple part is that we adopt the role of commander. Commander has a set task. We default to thinking of consequences and how to optimize. Not human values.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Might arriving at the optimum strategy, assuming we have a goal like minimizing casualties over the longest span of time, still be in harmony with what we deem ethical? Or would ethical considerations tend to interfere with arriving at optimal strategy?

I hope you'll forgive my bizarre inquiries but my line of thinking is that morality and ethics ultimately boils down to optimizing survival of a group of people (or even extended further to living creatures) we care about, that unethical behavior is effectively maladapted behavior ill-suited to survive in the long run, especially if repeated over and over by various people.

[Effably]

A general or military leader has the inherent task of using their resources the best way possible.

It is their task to condemn some to death so others live. Its a role with fixed ethics.

[DevikaButts95]

Well a reason why ethical dilemmas go so in detail to leave you with a difficult choice to try and figure out what you would do and why.
Here this is less an ethical dilemma and more so how much of a risktaker you are. The probability isn't even specified enough, is it a 1/4? or a 1/8192 chance? A person could read it either way, at least arguably, even though you specified the suicide mission part. It gives a little less philosophical input in my opinion.
To answer it though, the way it reads to me, it's just "will you send these guys on a suicide mission where they will die and certainly fail?" Of course not.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Is there a probability where you would change your mind? Like 1%? 2%? 5%?

[IslaTheWitch]

I strongly believe that we leave no one behind. I also believe that friendship bonds are better motivation than any order. Having intel means your army probably has highly trained snipers.

I would create a rescue mission based on volunteers. At least those with useful skills. I would add one sniper and train or add someone who is good at explosives. I would equip them with the best comms, guns, and whatever would be needed to increase their chance of survival and success.

In real life, the army has special force units to do this work. They are trained to take the risk and succeed.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I'm in favor of the same type of principles of leaving no one behind. It seems like it would create more effective soldiers as well, like the Greek Hoplites where every soldier fought tightly together as a team protecting each other's flanks and backs. Even a failed attempt at a rescue might still inspire this type of cooperation.

[IslaTheWitch]

It's easier to attract people to long-term military service if such principles are promoted and executed. It also creates stronger bonds between peers if they know they can count on each other in a crisis situation.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

That's an excellent point as well! Part of my curiosity on this topic is that I always questioned if the saying, "The end justifies the means," must necessarily result in what we might consider deeply unethical actions. If we're really trying our best to make the most well-informed decisions that have the highest probability of producing the best possible, long-term consequences, then they often seem compatible to me with what we might call "good" as opposed to "evil".

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

If anything, the greatest atrocities in history from my perspective seem to come more from the other way around, from people who put the means above the ends that thought "the means justify any possible end," allowing even their own people to suffer horribly, and ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs, because they were so certain that what they were doing was right.

[JacobJordan]

This is less an ethical question and more of a rational and emotional question. Logically given the information being a suicide mission risking more resources is a bad idea. Emotionally risking more resources despite the information is a good idea. Ultimately rationality wins out and so the best option is to leave them as difficult as it is. Sure a small team could theoretically make it to those soldiers and return with them but as a leader your job is not to go with emotions but with logic.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Where I was thinking was more in terms of the soldiers being emotional, like @IslaTheWitch's rationale. The "leave no man behind" philosophy might inspire stronger teamwork and also make it easier to recruit and keep proud soldiers in the service, knowing that they won't be left behind and at least rescue attempts would be made if they ever find themselves in a similar situation.

[JacobJordan]

Very common which is what separates the leaders from the underlings. The script information says that "I am the commander of an army" so as much as I would like you attempt a rescue of those soldiers as a leader my highest task is to protect the lives of those under my command and I take full responsibility for what happens. This is a heavy burden and in this particular instance risking more lives to save lives that are either still alive but going to die or already dead and we don't know goes against that task. It does however mean that I have several doors to knock on stateside.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I see! I think my whole attempt at this Q might have been a bit of a fail, hoping to pose a generalized ethical dilemma but absent the proper military experience and knowledge for the subject in question. Thanks very much for you input! 🤝I'll have to try to think of a better one next time.

[JacobJordan]

It is a solid question and it actually showcases something better than an ethical solution. It showcases the difference in how certain individuals would approach and solve a problem. Off a brief inventory of the replies many are utilizing emotional povs. Some are utilizing rational povs a few are focusing on military stratagem. The main thing with an ethical question is you need to touch on a few points. If I might I will borrow your ethical and make a few changes to it so it is a bit more ethical.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

No problem, and I'd be very interested in the new dilemma.

[JacobJordan]

You are a commander of an army and a small group of your soldiers have become stranded in deep enemy territory. Intelligence reports indicate that you can successfully rescuing the soldiers though the attempt will cost lives. Intel also suggests that they cab make their way to camp alone but few will make it back alive. You can rescue them if you wish but you will need volunteers. Do you attempt a rescue if so how if not why. Or do you leave the soldiers to return on their own?

Some small changes but this actually changes into an ethical quandary. You know that you can rescue them but you alone also know that doing so will cost you lives. So now you have to decide the ethics portion of it. This is where it becomes clear. Do you attempt the rescue? If yes what is the approach do you ask for volunteers? do you share the fact that some of them will die? Is the risk worth the reward? Do you order people to go? Which people if you know some will die? If you don't attempt the rescue how do you rationalize it? You know that few of them will return if you do nothing does that influence your decision. When considering an ethical quandary the setup needs to raise many questions as those questions change how the act applies.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Makes sense! Also I like the additional questions you introduced in the second paragraph.

A part I'm curious about is "[..] can successfully rescuing the soldiers though the attempt will cost lives."

The "will" part is something I was wondering about since a lot of my thinking patterns in risk assessments is based on probability rather than guarantees.

Something I often find a bit difficult for my brain to grasp in lots of ethical dilemmas I've seen presented is that they seem to frame possible consequences as certainties, when I tend rarely find situations where anything is guaranteed to happen.

I tend to think entirely in terms of probabilities in risk assessments, like the probability of pocket jacks beating a range of hands in Texas Hold 'Em when a loose small blind makes a huge raise on me.

[JacobJordan]

For an ethical the possibility of success generally makes it just a logical outcome. For it to be ethical you need concrete outcomes where you can then apply risk vs reward. The questions I listed were to showcase how the changing of the ethical quandary opened up a lot of questions that would alter the choice. Phrasing it that way forces thinking because you can affect a rescue which will cost lives is that worth it? You can leave them to find their way back but few will make it. And then the how. The main focus of an ethical quandary is less to do with the scenario and more to do with how does the responder rationalize there decision. By phrasing consequences as certainties it means they must take into consideration those consequences even though you are right they are unlikely to be a certainty

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I see and I like the changes you made and how they seem to provoke more thought. I'll try to keep those changes in mind in the future for such questions. Thank you very much! 🤝

[JacobJordan]

Best of luck to you.

[BCA6010]

Like it or not, war is largely a numbers game at the end of the day, and most countries have a doctrinal demand for a minimum advantage before pushing an attack. If the situation is "this will likely be a suicide mission" for the rescue team, then there is no way that gets approved.

A similar scenario to what you're describing occured in Mogadishu, 1993 in which two Delta snipers repeatedly nagged their command to be inserted to defend one of the crashed helicopters, were told directly by the commander it was a suicide mission, and they went in anyway. There is a reason however that there are virtually no prominent examples of anything like that happening again ever since, though catastrophic losses to a rescue element have certainly happened, such as the attempt to extract the SEALs as depicted in the book (and movie) Lone Survivor.

[FreyaRed]

"What course of action in this scenario do you believe to be the most ethical choice and why?"

Sending people into suicide mission is wasteful and will undermine very likely moral of your troops. "No one will be left behind" is a meme for naive fools. Winning a conflict is the goal and every good and integer commander won't lose resources and manpower in missions with incalculable risks.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Very iron-fisted and tough-minded! I'm of a different mindset but I dig it.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Do you think it might depend a bit on the culture in question? Like how the soldiers are raised and what cultural values they share? I could see your way being well-suited for a warrior culture where people are raised to think like this.

[Squatting_Slav]

Firstly, no man behind may be conceived as this hollywood-esque term. However, soldiers are there to have one another's back. It would be immoral to force men to go in on a rescue mission considering very low success rate which is why I would go down the voluntary route which is more moral, which would raise morale of other troops knowing their comrades would do the same for them... they would be provided with all the necessary gear and equipment they need to undertake the task at hand. This could also be a smart move to sway the enemy off course..

on the contrary would I accept the reality of the situation. Soldiers are trained to survive and drilled to understand that anything can happen and to accept consequences of unfortunate events. Morality is thrown out the window, does conservation of resources outweigh the success rate of rescuing these soldiers? That would need to be assessed.

[OddBeMe]

Lots is contextual. We talking Mogadishu? How many volunteers versus those stranded? There’s no other options for resupply or rescue?

I guess this is where I fall apart on ethical q’s. Which they’re as complex as yours, yet you’re asking for a simplistic answer.

The Jean Val Jean classic: would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? I would.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I was just curious how people might rationalize their ethical thought processes, although in hindsight I think a military dilemma might have been a poor one to question our ethics.

On the stealing dilemma, I'm similar or at least I hope I would rather than allowing my family to starve to death. That's a case where I would think stealing to feed a starving family is morally right on an individual level but ethically wrong on a societal level.

While I consider it morally right on an individual level, we must not condone it on an ethical level and have repercussions for even thieves driven to such desperate measures, or else such a society will likely collapse that condones theft with no repercussion for thieves provided that all thieves are sufficiently desperate enough in this regard.

[OddBeMe]

We don’t need to bother condoning as long as feeding poor families isn’t a “need” in society. But we fail at that because we are all idiots. We think higher taxes are a bad thing instead of looking what it would buy us.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

What did you think about Andrew Yang with his UBI proposal? I tend to lean right economically on the 2D political compass (right-libertarian to be precise) although I always found the idea of UBI interesting and potentially worth trying. It's not something I see as comparable to most government forms of spending, since it directly redistributes income without a middleman to take a massive cut. It doesn't require exhaustive red tape to determine eligibility in ways that has a tendency to privilege a select group of people in favor of another based on things like sex or race. Even though it has the ultimate effect of transferring wealth downwards from richer to poorer, it seems more palatable to the psyche of the masses as everyone who earns an income contributes and everyone, regardless of income, receives.

A difficulty I've always found with higher taxes are concepts like the Laffer's Curve and Hauser's Law. There seems to be some truth to the Laffer's curve in that there's some threshold in which higher taxes exceeding some threshold actually results in less tax revenue, even though it's difficult to tell which side of the curve we're on. Then there's Hauser's Law which observes that tax revenue tends to constantly be at around 18-19% regardless of marginal rates:


So that always suggested to me that either higher marginal rates stunts economic growth so much that it has a counter-productive effect on tax revenue or, what I think is more likely, higher marginal tax rates results in more corruption that effectively still has those in higher brackets paying less, on average, with the added unwanted side effect of a growing grey economy where the resourceful seek as many legal loopholes as possible to mitigate the costs of their taxes along with a growing underground economy that even leads to unlawful measures to avoid paying taxes.

[purplepoppy]

It's not ethical to lose lives on a lost cause. However not doing so gives the message to your men that you'd abandon them should the same fate befall them.
Without hope of rescue or success there's the hope the trapped men will become pows rather than killed.

Of course you could always say you want to go in but your own superior officers have ordered you not to.

[Anonymous]

In this scenario, I think you need to consider the broader mission. Rescuing soldiers is very likely NOT the ultimate aim of this army. Whatever action is taken--attempting a rescue, leaving the soldiers, etc.--it must be the course of action that best serves the greater goal.

A suicide rescue mission is almost certainly not that course of action.

[FunkyMonkee]

I would take the risk and hope that at least one of us, upon seeing the situation at hand close-up, would be able to get an idea of how to get out of it.

[BoopBoopBeep]

That was Black Hawk Down. You still go back for your own.

[KrakenAttackin]

NO ONE GETS LEFT BEHIND.

[ChefPapiChulo]

That's how officers get naded.

[ChefPapiChulo]

The technical term is fragged.