This soldier decides to rape and kill the civilian himself, reasoning that he will make it more tolerable than another soldier would, and will save himself in the process. But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

By the way, this thought experiment is paraphrased from Julian Baggini's The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten.

This man is not taking the best course of action. He is doing something terribly wrong. Objectively and subjectively. He is acting under the hypothesis that IF he undertakes act A, THEN B will happen. He does not know this for sure. In all likelyhood a commander giving such an order willhave the soldier executing the order killed after the fact.

Anyway, try to think of this as two seperate cases:
1) The soldier deciding what act to make.
2) The Commander deciding what act to make.

In situation 1 it is clear that the act to be undertaken is morally wrong because of the fact that nobody would will this happen to him- or herself. The consequences of not undertaking the act are irrelevant for that. If one would change one's behavior because of certain consequences, that would merely prove corruption.
The commander however is morally wrong for giving the order and for trying to corrupt the person executing the action.

In other words:

The soldier is making the worst possible choice in going along with his commander.

Further:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.

Julian Baggini (born 1968) is a British philosopher and the author of numerous books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.

the acts required of him are vile and unforgivable

Robert has only said what the soldier has elected to do in this thought experiment and not necessarily what course of action Baggini would advocate in such a scenario. Not to mention how subjective most, if not all, ethical judgements are.

Might it be that your appraisal of Baggini is a bit rash? I mean the man does have a Ph.D in philosophy from one of the UK's leading universties.

Julian Baggini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

I don't identify as a consequentialist so I think that the moral route is refusal. Still, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth... Given the scenario the woman is going to suffer more and the soldier is going to die if he refuses.

Is there no right action, just a better action?

But getting back to the soldier... He can only control his actions, i.e., he is only responsible for what he does and not the actions of another. So rape and kill or refuse to rape and kill? Given these choices the moral route seems pretty obvious.

I think you are rash in your judgement yourself. Did the opening post not say:

Which is a statement on the judgement of the action by said Julian Baggini, or so it is presented. If indeed this is a judgement of said Julian Baggini:

Further:

If I could make it so, I'd take away his Ph. D.

First of all, you're making a judgment about someone you clearly know nothing about. All that Baggini does in his book is offer situations for people to think about. He makes no judgments, he only plays devil's advocate. With all due respect, I think you're way off-base in your desire to take away a man's doctorate without any kind of investigation into his work. Furthermore, Baggini really has nothing to do with my post, I just wanted to cite my source. In the scenario the soldier does something and we have the opportunity to think about it. It is the soldier that makes the judgments in this scenario, not Baggini, not me. The soldier.

I have no doubt in my mind that I would personally refuse to rape and kill. However, I thought that we might be able to discuss the issues involved in the experiment. Also, why is it that you suggest that I read Kant, but when I offer a point of disconnect in Kant's work you completely ignore it?

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

It's unfortunate that this thread has seemed to degenerate into squabble. I didn't think that the language I used was terribly confusing, but I'll be sure to make everything explicit in the future.

What's even more unfortunate is that you feel that I had the intent to deceive and unnerve you.

I ended my brief talk about Kant by explaining that if anyone could point out any errors I've made to please do so--and I meant it. I'm not here to simply win arguments, feel superior to others, and talk down to people. I'm here to hopefully learn and improve myself.

Obviously I don't feel that I've ignored a key remark. I thought the language was reasonably straightforward and that people would easily grasp the point of the experiment. Alas, no. We're arguing about things that I have no interest in, and defending myself from misunderstandings every post is exhausting. If these misunderstanding are solely my fault I apologize and, as I said, will make everything explicit in future posts.

I think I see what you're saying. Hope is a tool that we can use to help us endure difficult choices. It's maleable to the point that it adapts to our needs. Great observation! It offers an interesting perspective on the scenario.

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. I'm glad that you understand the point of my original post.

Deception
Further information: Doctrine of mental reservation Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as they know they will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it is universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in himself. And the theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.

A hypothetical imperative, originally introduced in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant, is a commandment of reason that applies only conditionally: if A, then B, where A is a condition or goal, and B is an action. Then "A" would be a reaction of action "B". For example, if you wish to remain healthy, then you should not eat spoiled food. Thus, a hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself, but as a means to an end; whether it is in force as a command depends on whether the end it helps attain is desired (or required). The opposite of a hypothetical imperative is a categorical imperative, which is unconditional and an end in itself.
Kant divides hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories: the rules of skill and the councils of prudence. The rules of skill are conditional and are specific to each and every person to which the skill is mandated by. The councils of prudence (or rules of prudence) are attained a priori (unlike the rules of skill which are attained via experience, or a posteriori) and have universal goals such as happiness. Thus, almost any moral "rule" about how to act is hypothetical, because it assumes that your goal is to be moral, or to be happy, or to please God, etc. The only non-hypothetical imperatives are ones which tell you to do something no matter who you are or what you want, because the thing is good in itself.

This may sound like a ridiculous line of questioning but it has an interesting background... Kant talked about a fictional man who was hiding Jews in his home during WWII.

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

In other words:

The soldier is making the worst possible choice in going along with his commander.

Further:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.

Deftil,

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. I'm glad that you understand the point of my original post.

Bob