[smallnamespace]

IMO you are reducing complicated situations into a false black and white in order to argue that people are ultimately immoral beings.

You use the benefit of perfect hindsight, then adopting a particular consequentialist utilitarian framework and saying 'this is all there is to morality', but morality has multiple (often conflicting) objectives. I think denying that any conflict exists is really the essence of evil.

In the theatre of war, soldiers do not have perfect information or context. People who purposefully disobey orders generally put the lives of their own comrades and countrymen at risk.

Loyalty to your fellow soldiers and putting a measure of trust in them is moral. So is courage in the face of danger (in the case of admiral captain).

Even if we adopt your utilitarian framework, in the case of the U-boat attack, you are presupposing that the lives saved by allowing the rescue to continue will outweigh all the future damage and people killed in the future if that U-boat is allowed to continue to operate unimpeded. How do you know that's true? How would the pilot know in that situation?

In the case of the admiral, how we know his strategic choice was superior to the Admiralty's? It seems like you're assuming that he made the clear right move and was punished for it.