[dozzie]

> That B-24 crew attacks the enemy, which is good and therefore moral - that it was a supremely cowardly and bloodthirsty thing is irrelevant.

Note that they were ordered to attack despite that they reported survivors on board. Attribute the cowardice and bloodthirst appropriately in the command chain.

[j9461701]

"I was just following orders" was not a valid excuse for the Nazis, and it isn't a valid excuse for our own men.

[pbhjpbhj]

Depending on the specifics "I knew I'd be killed if I didn't do it and was afraid" is a perfectly valid excuse.

The reason it's not accepted is because it's too difficult to discern if it's a lie in order to (attempt to) avoid punishment.

Following an order to attack an enemy in time of war, when you'll probably die for not attacking them ... if you knew for certain the enemy wasn't trying to trick you, and were genuinely saving civilians, then of course you should disobey, ... maybe ...

Even if that particular captain was saving civilians, it may still ultimately save lives to sink the enemy ship; that's the "glory" of war. Taking a pragmatic approach then, sinkng the ship can be considered "moral".

Indeed taking such an a priori callous action could require a degree of bravery.

[coddingtonbear]

Given that they received medals, I'm not sure that's true in any practical sense.

[barrkel]

OP is arguing the moral principle in reply to someone trying to justify a moral wrong, but OP's original point is that the practicalities observably trump morals, despite this being wrong. I don't think it's helpful for you to switch tack back to practicalities again on this branch.