This is a invented scenario paraphrased from "the pig that wants to be eaten"(by Julian Baggini). A soldier jumps on a grenade saving many lives but killing himself in the process. The army however do not award him a medal. His family, being surprised by this, wrote to the army concerning this. The army replied that the soldier did what every soldier was expected to do in that situation if they rewarded such behaviour it would not be seen as necessary by the soldiers and the soldier would have been killed anyway in the explosion.
Was the army correct? I believe so.
discuss and please reply.
I understand that this man did lose his life to saving others. However I believe that no human to be awarded a medal unless its something that is truly earned. According the army, it is his duty to kill others. So lets say that the man lived, he could easily be told by the Army to kill a whole village just so they are sure that they targeted a single man. should he really be awarded for killing those other people? The medal is nothing but a trinket. something of status. Does that really help anyone after the war? after all the death and severely injured. many men come home with several limbs or a reconstructed face. they are half the men they came out and they are supported very little.
The Army means nothing but sending innocent people to kill other innocent set for the sake of politics, power and status. No one should be awarded for that