Moral injury through inaction?

2015-06-13T00:11:17-04:00

Can inaction in the face of perceived evil create moral injury? Is it more aggravated in situations where cultural norms deviate from Western norms and culture?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/12/when-the-hardest-thing-is-doing-nothing-moral-injury-caused-by-inaction-in-war

When the hardest thing is doing nothing: Moral injury caused by inaction in war

The counterinsurgency campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the line between “non-lethal” and “lethal” missions blurred, create an absurdity where good intentions and ethics…

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 12:30 AM

2015-06-13T00:30:48-04:00

Absolutely.
Many people react to extreme situations by doing nothing, for fear of making a mistake. The guilt at their inaction, particularly if there were heavy consequences, can definitely mess you up.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 13 at 2015 1:42 AM

2015-06-13T01:42:30-04:00

So if the "Cultural Norm" is to have Female children "Circumcised" by the ritual removal of the sensory parts of her reproductive organs, as is common in several African and Muslim societies, do we step in and stop it, or do we give that concession while we give in on so many other things?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 13 at 2015 1:58 AM

2015-06-13T01:58:35-04:00

"In war, moral injury results from a perplexing dilemma, in which either action: killing or not killing results in a loss of humanity, a loss of self."

Exactly.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 13 at 2015 6:50 AM

2015-06-13T06:50:17-04:00

My first thought was "hell yes."

I've spent far more of my life thinking "I should have done X" than "I shouldn't have."

I generally regret active decisions less than passive decisions. Making an active decision closes possibilities. You ask yourself what you could have done differently. Making a passive decision, forces you to ask yourself what you could have done at all.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 13 at 2015 7:27 AM

2015-06-13T07:27:44-04:00

It is a good thing she did not shoot. The punishment for rape (in the U.S.) is not death. I would argue a child rapist deserves it but that is not the punishment today. She would have been in a world of crap and rightfully so.

The story is poorly written. She did have options, she chose not to do anything. That is where the guilt comes in. Had she taken some action (even if ultimately she could not stop it) she would have at least felt she did what she could. Were there no others on post with her? Was there no communication with anyone (Sgt of the Guard, OOD etc). Could she have done anything? Hard to say because she tried nothing. That, I think, is where her guilt comes from.

I am not suggesting she could have stopped it or should have stopped it. There are thousands of things that happen there a day that are offensive to us (westerners) but are part of normal life to them (I don't put rape in that category). War is full of moral injury.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2015 8:16 AM

2015-06-13T08:16:40-04:00

Well, we teach our subordinates to not be bystanders when they see something wrong. So, what;s the difference? Can we have it both ways?

We should not be told to not do anything when we see wrong doings. This is regardless of where we are, what we are doing, and if it is on the battle field or in garrison.

She allowed a crime to take place and she also allowed a child to be harmed. She should have done something. Even if it was a warning shot, screaming to them, or something. I would have fought for any of my Airmen if they would have shot that scumbag. To save a life we sometimes have to take one. Her inactions should haunt her for the rest of her life.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 13 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-06-13T11:00:13-04:00

Inaction to include the inability to change the course of events.