What makes those reasons better? Wars, no matter their motivation, devastate innocent people, lands and animals. If you're a soldier going into war not knowing that, you're an idiot. Soldiers can be directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people for "the greater good". Casualties of War, as they say. And what is war (and what soldiers fight for), other than personal vendettas on a larger scale? Whatever labels it carries, wars begin out of greed, ambition...or vengeance. Also for independence, and self defense. And that's lovely and all. But hardly the case all the time.

Why does a soldier killing to rectify a wrong against his country (killing who knows how many that are uninvolved with whatever action took place), gain morality over someone killing to rectify wrongs against themselves or their family?





I also hope that you meant to say this statement differently, as the two instances are unrelated and and irrelevant comparison.

And in any case, who determines the morality of the cause? If the cause is evil or unethical or vengeance, would the soldier supporting it not be just as guilty?

PS. I'm not trying to argue that soldiers are evil. Merely that Arya is not evil because she kills.