system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Soldiers are expected to obey orders. Some orders are immoral and should not be obeyed. How can a soldier navigate the tension between these two obligations in a consistently ethical manner?
gpt
> How can a soldier navigate the tension between these two obligations in a consistently ethical manner? 

Why should there be a tension here that threatens ethical inconsistency?  Do you mean to suppose that soldiers have an *ethical obligation* to obey all orders they receive?  Surely that's not true--or do you mean to argue that case?  If there's a tension here, it seems to me rather a tension between social expectation and ethics, and one can behave *in a consistently ethical manner* by choosing to follow the latter.

Or, should we take this a step back and argue that we have an ethical responsibility to fulfill social expectations?

(Or do you not mean to ask about an *ethical* tension here, but merely the practical matter of navigating a tension between ethics and social expectations?)

Incidentally, soldiers in many armies are told, at least officially, that they are expected *not* to follow grossly immoral orders.  Admittedly, the qualification "at least officially" is surely a significant one.