I recently read a morally debatable article which involves our own military and the tactics that they use. Most everybody knows what has been going on in the Middle East in regards to ISIS and other terrorist groups and how the U.S. have been using mostly airstrikes to fight the group. These airstrikes have a tendency to kill a number of civilians along with members of ISIS, which can also be seen as wrong. However, shortly ago American led airstrikes killed dozens of Syrian government troops. These troops were troops that were also fighting against ISIS. The Pentagon blamed unintentional human mistakes for the those airstrikes, and those mistakes cost many innocent lives.
I think no matter what kind of moral view you use killing innocent people can be seen as being immoral. I would like to use a utilitarian view in this certain situation. An action can been seen as right or wrong depending on the balance of good to bad consequences and whether the greater amount of people are benefiting from that action. When it comes to airstrikes killing innocent people along with ISIS members I think that people can justify it because even though innocent people are dying from them, so are many terrorists so in the big picture they think they are saving more lives. However, this does not work in this situation. In this situation the airstrikes were made with extreme human error and as a result there was only innocent people killed, and no terrorists killed. There was no good came from this action, and the greatest amount of people did not benefit. So, when looking at that result this can be seen as very wrong under a utilitarian view.