Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia.
University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
J Med Philos. 2022 Dec 23;47(6):723-734. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhac028.
In this article, I undertake three main tasks. First, I argue that, contrary to the standard view, moral injury is not a species of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) but rather, on the most coherent conception of moral injury, PTSD is (in effect) a species of moral injury. In doing so, I make use of the notion of caring deeply about something or someone worthy of being cared deeply about. Second, I consider so-called "dirty hands" actions in police work and in war, and distinguish these from the morally legitimate, but harmful, actions of police officers and of war fighters, such as the morally legitimate use of coercive force and lethal force (respectively). While the morally legitimate use of harmful methods is constitutive of these occupational roles, "dirty hands" methods are not. Roughly speaking, a "dirty hands" action is one that is morally wrong and (typically) unlawful but done for the sake of a good outcome. Both categories of action are conducive to moral injury, but "dirty hands" actions much more so, especially given the slippery moral slope from "dirty hands" actions to egregious moral wrongdoing. Third, I offer some recommendations for reducing moral injury among police officers and war fighters.
本文承担了三项主要任务。首先，我认为，与标准观点相反，道德伤害不是创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）的一种，而是在最连贯的道德伤害概念上，PTSD（实际上）是道德伤害的一种。在这样做的过程中，我利用了深深关心某些值得被深深关心的东西或人的概念。其次，我考虑了警察工作和战争中的所谓“肮脏的手”行为，并将这些行为与警察和战斗人员的合法但有害的行为区分开来，例如合法使用强制性武力和致命武力（分别）。虽然合法使用有害方法构成了这些职业角色的一部分，但“肮脏的手”方法不是。大致来说，“肮脏的手”行为是一种道德上错误的（通常是非法的）行为，但为了好的结果而采取的行为。这两类行为都容易导致道德伤害，但“肮脏的手”行为更为严重，尤其是考虑到从“肮脏的手”行为到严重道德过错的道德滑坡。第三，我为减少警察和战斗人员的道德伤害提供了一些建议。
