What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

You really need to quit conflating self defense and defense. They are very much two different things.

Ok. During the invasion of Iraq, a war we've both agreed is unjust, a squad of soldiers are given a mission, and all the orders are lawful. The mission requires they kill enemy soldiers, not in defense of anything, but as part of the objective of the mission. They've been given lawful orders and under the Unified Code of Military Justice could be court marshaled for refusing the orders, is it moral for them to carry out those orders, killing Iraqi soldiers to do so?

I made the distinction in post 1501:

"Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral."

Personally? I don't think it's a moral act. But cannot speak for the culpability of these men/women given the situation they're in. My husband is military, and while his job is not combative, I still have respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to serve their country, despite a bad leader ordering them to go to war.

You didn't make a distinction, you conflated defense of self and defense of others and it has caused no end of confusion. They are two very different things.

I'm at a loss as to what to say. You say you respect our troops for putting their lives on the line, but you believe they're acting immorally if they follow lawful orders that require them to kill in an offensive action. I think I've sprained an ankle trying to follow your mental gymnastics on this issue.