Soldiers and Moral Tragedy

Abstract

This article examines Massimo Renzo's important argument regarding the moral responsibility of soldiers fighting in unjust wars. Renzo proposes a middle position between, on the one hand, traditionalist views that absolve soldiers of moral culpability when following orders within the law of armed conflict and, on the other hand, revisionist positions that hold individual soldiers morally responsible for participation in unjust wars. Renzo argues that soldiers in legitimate states have a pro tanto duty to obey orders unless the presumption of obedience is clearly rebutted through independent moral reflection—what he terms “peeking” at underlying justifications. While acknowledging the theoretical sophistication of Renzo’s hybrid approach, this response identifies critical instabilities in his framework. The analysis reveals that in practice, soldiers of generally just states rarely have sufficient grounds to overcome the presumption of obedience, effectively collapsing Renzo's position into a traditionalist absolution of individual combatant responsibility. Furthermore, the article argues that Renzo’s model creates a paradoxical situation in which soldiers can be simultaneously justified and unjustified in their actions. This paradox means that the account cannot fully address the tragic dimensions of political membership and the interpersonal nature of moral responsibility in warfare.