Military Derail from Women & Voting

[Goodchild]

I could possibly get behind the idea of only allowing those who've served in the military vote, once they are no longer in the military of course. Kind of like Starship Troopers.

I've not really given it lots of thought, but the idea appeals to me.

[Joykins]

I could possibly get behind the idea of only allowing those who've served in the military vote, once they are no longer in the military of course. Kind of like Starship Troopers.

I've not really given it lots of thought, but the idea appeals to me.

No disabled people need apply...

[dancer_rnb]

I could possibly get behind the idea of only allowing those who've served in the military vote, once they are no longer in the military of course. Kind of like Starship Troopers.

I've not really given it lots of thought, but the idea appeals to me.

Hell no.......

[His Noodly Appendage]

Yes, only those successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism should influence the governance of the nation. Good plan.

[Octavia]

I could possibly get behind the idea of only allowing those who've served in the military vote, once they are no longer in the military of course. Kind of like Starship Troopers.

I've not really given it lots of thought, but the idea appeals to me.

Hell no.......

Allow me to echo that sentiment. A democratic government is created by the people, for the people. Not by the military, for the military. Not by the men, for the men. "The people" means everyone, not just whatever branch of the people you happen to agree with.

[dancer_rnb]

One of my great grandfathers was a German veteran of WWI and WWII. He also became a recruiter for the National Socialists between the world wars. Being in the military is no guarantee of morality or reasonableness.

[Worldtraveller]

I could possibly get behind the idea of only allowing those who've served in the military vote, once they are no longer in the military of course. Kind of like Starship Troopers.

I've not really given it lots of thought, but the idea appeals to me.

No disabled people need apply...
Expand it for there to be a civil service option. Not a terrible solution, but still rife with potential problems.

ETA:Maybe a mandatory service, similar to umm..Switzerland? It seems to work there.

[His Noodly Appendage]

ETA:Maybe a mandatory service, similar to umm..Switzerland? It seems to work there.

Um, fuck no.

The situation doesn't improve because you force indoctrination in militaristic authoritarianism on everyone.

It's the same problem as before. Instead of only accepting the decisions of obedient hired killers, you accept the decisions of everyone... after ensuring that everyone is an obedient hired killer.

[darjeeling]

Yes, only those successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism should influence the governance of the nation. Good plan.

No one's more anti-war than your average combat vet...

[His Noodly Appendage]

Darjeeling:

I have it on good and indeed impassioned authority that soldiers can't possibly be held morally responsible for killing, because they're brainwashed from bootcamp onwards into total spineless obedience by the military machine, with unquestioning deference to authority hardwired right into their limbic system, and so cannot be considered moral agents in the slightest.

As such, soldiers would make terrible guardians of a country's governance.

In fact, I move to deny them the vote altogether on that basis.

[darjeeling]

Darjeeling:

I have it on good and indeed impassioned authority that soldiers can't possibly be held morally responsible for killing, because they're brainwashed from bootcamp onwards into total spineless obedience by the military machine, with unquestioning deference to authority hardwired right into their limbic system, and so cannot be considered moral agents in the slightest.

As such, soldiers would make terrible guardians of a country's governance.

In fact, I move to deny them the vote altogether on that basis.

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes:

My point was that not every single person who goes through the system comes out "successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism", and it's pretty fucking absurd to make a sweeping statement like that.

And there's a huge difference between your obnoxious hyperbole and the simple fact that once someone made the mistake of signing up, they don't have the option to disobey orders.

[TySixtus]

Darjeeling:

I have it on good and indeed impassioned authority that soldiers can't possibly be held morally responsible for killing, because they're brainwashed from bootcamp onwards into total spineless obedience by the military machine, with unquestioning deference to authority hardwired right into their limbic system, and so cannot be considered moral agents in the slightest.

As such, soldiers would make terrible guardians of a country's governance.

In fact, I move to deny them the vote altogether on that basis.

Lol. It must be easy to view the world the way you do.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ah, so you're saying now that soldiers are moral agents, then?

[dancer_rnb]

Yes, only those successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism should influence the governance of the nation. Good plan.

No one's more anti-war than your average combat vet...

Yeah, but what about the loud ones?

[Matty]

Ah, so you're saying now that soldiers are moral agents, then?

i know some soldiers, and a couple of marines, current and ex, all of who are good guys and as far as i am concerned, as moral as i am.

Does that mean i would view some of the shit they've had to do the same? No? But that doesnt make them immoral, just means that they did something you might view as immoral in a different context. A context that is, id imagine, pretty hard to picture unless you have been there. Not all soldiers are native raping child murdering psychos Noodles, some do go into it with excellent intentions and with the view to helping people, and that remains even of they've had to do some ugly shit in the meantime.


I think any kind of qualification other than citizenship - tests, military service, property ownership - just creates greater social divisions, greater injusticeyeah but that only works if you assume that everyone is equally qualified to decide what to have for dinner, let alone how best to run their country. That clearly isn't the case.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I dare say they are.

The point is that their actions are, well, a choice, to borrow a phrase. The people pulling the trigger are directly, personally responsible for the bullet leaving the barrel. The blood of the people they kill lies on their hands. There is no passing that buck. Yes, the people giving the orders are also to blame - but that doesn't change anything.

There are people who argue that 'only following orders' absolves absolutely everyone except five-star generals and of course people who enable them by paying income tax. These are the people I'm having a go at.

And nice guy or not, if you sign away your right to refuse to kill anyone you're ordered to, then you have whored out your conscience for cash as fully as any hired killer. People bang on about only having to obey 'lawful orders', but bullshit. When the government giving the orders is the one making the laws in the first place, 'lawful' is a sick fucking joke.

The fuck that did this

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/Iraqi-Girl.jpg.jpg

Is a fucking child-murderer. And anyone who agrees ahead of time to do the same on demand...

[dancer_rnb]

It's one thing to be drafted. It's another thing to enlist.

[Matty]

i do agree to a level, just making the distinction between someone who is innately immoral and someone who is moral but in the positions of having to do something that might in different circumstances be morally abhorrent to them.

In addition to the guys i mentioned i also know one or two who signed up to shoot people. Just saying they arent all the same, i daresy some lose sleep over what they saw or did and others couldnt give a fuck.

[halii]

Darjeeling:

I have it on good and indeed impassioned authority that soldiers can't possibly be held morally responsible for killing, because they're brainwashed from bootcamp onwards into total spineless obedience by the military machine, with unquestioning deference to authority hardwired right into their limbic system, and so cannot be considered moral agents in the slightest.

As such, soldiers would make terrible guardians of a country's governance.

In fact, I move to deny them the vote altogether on that basis.sometimes you get so passionate about things you can be a little overdramatic.

a lot of my friends from high school were in the army because that's what you do when you live in a poor town full of military recruiters and you're poor and not going to college and they offer you a signing bonus.

The army has made different impressions on them. there's not really a uniform attitude among everyone since they all had different experiences with different men and different leaders.

[lpetrich]

a lot of my friends from high school were in the army because that's what you do when you live in a poor town full of military recruiters and you're poor and not going to college and they offer you a signing bonus.
So these "volunteers" were not much different from mercenaries.

[Joykins]

a lot of my friends from high school were in the army because that's what you do when you live in a poor town full of military recruiters and you're poor and not going to college and they offer you a signing bonus.
So these "volunteers" were not much different from mercenaries.

Except for the part where they were fighting for their own country?

[TySixtus]

a lot of my friends from high school were in the army because that's what you do when you live in a poor town full of military recruiters and you're poor and not going to college and they offer you a signing bonus.
So these "volunteers" were not much different from mercenaries.


No, they aren't. Most people in the military aren't offended by the lack of distinction between "mercenary" and "soldier". Both fight for pay.

[TySixtus]

Ah, so you're saying now that soldiers are moral agents, then?

I have never argued that they weren't. Soldiers have a moral duty to disobey illegal orders.

[halii]

a lot of my friends from high school were in the army because that's what you do when you live in a poor town full of military recruiters and you're poor and not going to college and they offer you a signing bonus.
So these "volunteers" were not much different from mercenaries.well known fact: recruiters will buy you alcohol.

they will pretty much be your best friend til you sign. some people who changed their mind or were more definitive about saying "no" felt awful betraying their recruiters and some just did it anyway because the recruiter was so nice.

i hate recruiters.

i know i'm not supposed to blame them because they are stuck too, but it's a disgusting display to watch.

[darjeeling]

Ah, so you're saying now that soldiers are moral agents, then?

Erm. I'm saying that they're people who have given up their right to say "no" when given a legal order they don't like.

But again, my point was calling fucking bullshit on your stupid claim that everyone who goes through the military is "successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism" or whatever.

[dancer_rnb]

Ah, so you're saying now that soldiers are moral agents, then?

Erm. I'm saying that they're people who have given up their right to say "no" when given a legal order they don't like.

But again, my point was calling fucking bullshit on your stupid claim that everyone who goes through the military is "successfully indoctrinated in militaristic authoritarianism" or whatever.

It's no dumber than claiming it would be a good thing to restrict voting only to people who had done military service. (Not saying you did this.)

[His Noodly Appendage]

halii: I don't actually think that soldiers should be denied the vote. It was a way of making the point that giving only soldiers the vote would be fucking retarded.

Joykins: what's good about fighting 'for your country', over and above fighting for any other entity, such as a large multinational corporation?


i do agree to a level, just making the distinction between someone who is innately immoral and someone who is moral but in the positions of having to do something that might in different circumstances be morally abhorrent to them.

So it's not morally abhorrent under the circumstances at hand? Isn't that the very definition of whoring yourself out?

I do get that there's a whole range of attitudes to violence within the military. However:

* The person pulling the trigger is personally responsible for the harm caused by the bullet.
* They do have a choice - it may not be pleasant or easy, but just like putting down the fork and doing some exercise, it's still available.
* Even if you grant duress at the time, they're not under that duress when they sign on the dotted line. Okay, they might be poor and have few prospects. But no judge would accept that as justification for starting a career in armed robbery, so poverty does not justify selling your conscience.
* Either soldiers are 'dogs of war', brainwashed out of moral-agent status in bootcamp to the point that they effectively have an insanity defense for their actions (and should be denied the vote on grounds of mental incompetence), or they are simply ethically bankrupt for taking their thirty pieces of silver (and so certainly shouldn't be the only ones to vote), and in addition should be held personally accountable for each and every death they cause.

[halii]

halii: I don't actually think that soldiers should be denied the vote. It was a way of making the point that giving only soldiers the vote would be fucking retarded.
i'm not sure trying to out-retard that point was really the way to go.

[His Noodly Appendage]

heh

[halii]

i do agree to a level, just making the distinction between someone who is innately immoral and someone who is moral but in the positions of having to do something that might in different circumstances be morally abhorrent to them.

So it's not morally abhorrent under the circumstances at hand? Isn't that the very definition of whoring yourself out?if you are poor and your family is drowning in medical and funeral bills and collections is hounding them and you have the chance to make several thousand right away by signing a piece of paper on your 18th birthday, making a huge sacrifice for your family...

are you immoral for "whoring yourself out"? especially if you have no idea what hte military will be like, what htey are doing, how bad it is, etc? because you know what they tell you is you are defending your country, your citizens, etc and hell, you might just want to believe that.

is it really any worse for a clueless kid to join the army for the money than for someone to do job they don't have any interest in for the money? the difference is you can leave your job if you think you're doing something wrong, or you can take a stand and say no. as a kid once you get in the army you are trapped.


* They do have a choice - it may not be pleasant or easy, but just like putting down the fork and doing some exercise, it's still available.you and I have no idea how hard it is to make that choice. if you disobey orders and it gets your friends killed, it's even harder to live with the fact that you taking a stand didn't stop X mission from happening, it just made it harder to accomplish and resulted in more death.


* Even if you grant duress at the time, they're not under that duress when they sign on the dotted line. Okay, they might be poor and have few prospects. But no judge would accept that as justification for starting a career in armed robbery, so poverty does not justify selling your conscience.Actually judges mitigate behavior with circumstances all the time. people don't just join the military because they are poor, they join the military because the poor is where the military focuses their efforts. them being poor just makes them an easy target for recruitment. lack of education and other opportunities makes it easy to sell lies to young kids who often sign up as soon as they are 18.

have you ever seen tapes of military recruiters who don't get their recruit? they threaten to have the kids arrested, threaten to take their car, etc. they are crazy. they are all about fun until thy've lost and then they take out the big guns. some think they are legally obligated to sign before they even sign.

also you aren't actually saying that committing armed robbery is in any way comparable with signing a piece of paper, are you? if you could sometimes commit a robbery without understanding you were committing robbery, or were committing robbery because someone told you it was legal and you were helping people, then maybe i'd understand any comparison at all.

[His Noodly Appendage]

if you are poor and your family is drowning in medical and funeral bills and collections is hounding them and you have the chance to make several thousand right away by signing a piece of paper on your 18th birthday, making a huge sacrifice for your family...

are you immoral for "whoring yourself out"?

If the job involves shooting people in the face, then yes.

is it really any worse for a clueless kid to join the army for the money than for someone to do job they don't have any interest in for the money? the difference is you can leave your job if you think you're doing something wrong, or you can take a stand and say no. as a kid once you get in the army you are trapped.

That's exactly the part I'm talking about. Selling your right to refuse. Selling your honour. Writing a fucking blank cheque drawn on your conscience.

If my boss turned around and asked me to sign a new contract agreeing to kill people if the company required it, I would refuse. I would refuse if it cost me my job. I would refuse if it landed me in jail. I would refuse at gunpoint.

Agreeing because you're stuck in this one-horse town, because you need the money, because some asshole bought you a drink... I'm sorry, how exactly am I not supposed to have utter contempt for that?

There could conceivably be conditions where I'd kill another person. But it wouldn't be on someone else's say so, and no matter what you do to me, I won't agree to that in advance.

I'd call that the bare minimum standard of human decency, personally.

you and I have no idea how hard it is to make that choice. if you disobey orders and it gets your friends killed, it's even harder to live with the fact that you taking a stand didn't stop X mission from happening, it just made it harder to accomplish and resulted in more death.

Yeah, and I daresay being backup on a convenience store robbery puts one in the same situation. What's your point?

also you aren't actually saying that committing armed robbery is in any way comparable with signing a piece of paper, are you? if you could sometimes commit a robbery without understanding you were committing robbery, or were committing robbery because someone told you it was legal and you were helping people, then maybe i'd understand any comparison at all.

No, I'm saying that signing the piece of paper is tantamount to going on salary with, say, the mafia.

And I've yet to come across a situation where you can shoot someone in the face without understanding that you're shooting someone in the face. Unless your name is Ender, of course...

[darjeeling]

* They do have a choice - it may not be pleasant or easy, but just like putting down the fork and doing some exercise, it's still available.

You really think it's like putting down the fork and doing some exercise? Really?

But no judge would accept that as justification for starting a career in armed robbery,

Look, another bad analogy.

* Either soldiers are 'dogs of war', brainwashed out of moral-agent status in bootcamp to the point that they effectively have an insanity defense for their actions (and should be denied the vote on grounds of mental incompetence), or they are simply ethically bankrupt for taking their thirty pieces of silver (and so certainly shouldn't be the only ones to vote), and in addition should be held personally accountable for each and every death they cause.

Hm, yes, it's either one or the other. There can't possibly be any other options.

Also, every soldier shoots babies in the face. Trufax.

[His Noodly Appendage]

You really think it's like putting down the fork and doing some exercise? Really?

Really, it's a choice. It can be a choice between bad options. But still, yes, your trigger finger is under your own control. Whether you pull it or not is up to you. And if you do, that's your choice.

Look, another bad analogy.

No, it's not. Being poor does not excuse killing people for financial gain.

Hm, yes, it's either one or the other. There can't possibly be any other options.

Glad you agree. If you were trying to make the opposite point, you'd surely be making an actual case for it, wouldn't you?

Also, every soldier shoots babies in the face.

An interesting assertion. Did you come up with it all by yourself?

[Joykins]

Joykins: what's good about fighting 'for your country', over and above fighting for any other entity, such as a large multinational corporation?


It is THE distinction between being a mercenary or not. I did not post a value judgment.

ETA: I think one of the difficulties you and I may have when communicating is that you sometimes infer from my posts value judgments that I have not made (or, at least, that I have not posted and that I have deliberately not addressed). I'm often more interested in distinctions than value judgments; you appear to prefer the opposite.

However, to address your questions, I don't know that one is per se better than the other in any situation. Certainly protecting your home and family has a moral appeal beyond being an adventurer abroad, but either case can lead to acts of heroism or horror.

[His Noodly Appendage]

*nod*

From the context (both thread and cultural), it seemed a reasonable inference. Lots of people hold 'mercenary' to be a bad thing, as was the implication in

So these "volunteers" were not much different from mercenaries.

And lots of people hold 'fighting for your country' to be an inherently good thing.

As such, it was a fair (but evidently wrong) bet that you were in fact suggesting that 'for their country' covered the bad thing / good thing distinction.

Apologies for the confusion.

[Joykins]

Yeah, if you could remember that if I want to make (or discuss) a good thing/bad thing distinction, I will state it pretty clearly. I think that will keep me from yelling at you after 2 days of trying to say that I'm not trying to defend slave labor or something just because I state that Nazis farmed out slave labor to corporations. ;)

My feelings on the morality of fighting are ambivalent, because I see fighting to protect against evil and fighting of aggression in different ways morally, but in real situations these things can be difficult to separate.

[Matty]

see i look at the armed forces as a necessary evil, and in many ways I'm grateful for these people doing a needed job i would find difficult to do myself. Could i just shoot someone or bomb somewhere without questioning why those people apparently have it coming or if i really should, morally speaking? No, thats why i didnt sign up for one of the forces, becasue whilst mulling over the morality of the situation your entire squad could have just been taken out.

But someone's gotta do it, at least till the whole world joins hands and dances over rainbows with puppies and kittens anyway. The fact that governments "misuse" soldiers to their own ends is not a reflection of the morality of the soldiers. Just the fact that they have asshole bosses.

[dancer_rnb]

see i look at the armed forces as a necessary evil, and in many ways I'm grateful for these people doing a needed job i would find difficult to do myself. Could i just shoot someone or bomb somewhere without questioning why those people apparently have it coming or if i really should, morally speaking? No, thats why i didnt sign up for one of the forces, becasue whilst mulling over the morality of the situation your entire squad could have just been taken out.

But someone's gotta do it, at least till the whole world joins hands and dances over rainbows with puppies and kittens anyway. The fact that governments "misuse" soldiers to their own ends is not a reflection of the morality of the soldiers. Just the fact that they have asshole bosses.

Maybe if you are not aware that the government misuses soldiers before you enlist.
Otherwise you are ignoring it.

My father was drafted to fight in Korea. He always looked askance at those
who enlisted.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Shitty argument, matty.

Until human society transcends game theory, there'll always be organized crime. And protection rackets don't run themselves - someone's gotta do it.

Therefore, it's a perfectly valid career choice.

[Joykins]

Shitty argument, matty.

Until human society transcends game theory, there'll always be organized crime. And protection rackets don't run themselves - someone's gotta do it.

Therefore, it's a perfectly valid career choice.

If you're unwilling to engage in violence on any terms whatsoever, there will be no protection *against* the protection racket.

[Matty]

not a shitty argument. Some people are able to put aside their naturally occurring moral qualms and trust to hte "greater good" that the armed forces supposedly represent. I wouldnt be, ergo i would be a terrible soldier.

The fact that some people trust those higher up to do the right thing as they claim to, is not evidence of immorality, it might be evidence of misplaced credulity, but thats not the same thing at all.


as for crime as a valid career choice. Sure it is. Crime and the army are two major outlet occupations for kids from underprivileged areas arent they? You dont think that personal well being can override societal morality at times, i'd say it is an essential part of being human to know which of those [subjective] codes you can bend a bit or even break in certain contexts. Or are your personal moral codes totally inviolable even in particular contexts.


Is it immoral for me to smoke a doob knowing full well that strictly speaking i am breaking the law. Or does it make a difference that i think the law is bullshit?

[His Noodly Appendage]

If you're unwilling to engage in violence on any terms whatsoever, there will be no protection *against* the protection racket.

Right, the tendency to fuck over your rivals and turn their resources to your own ends is highly selective. In any population - in any environment where a population can exist - that tendency inevitably approaches a maximum. Those that refrain get outcompeted and outfucked, and vanish from the earth, forgotten.

But unless we're all suddenly fucking Social Darwinists, that doesn't make it moral.

Ever hear of the Selfish Gene?

Natural selection shits all over the individual. Hard.

Populations breed to the very brink of starvation. Those that refrain are simply outbred by those that don't. Predators inevitably evolve, and inevitably join an arms race with their prey, leaving all concerned in a life of constant aggression, pain and/or terror. The traits flourish, but due to sheer Murphy's Law (the fact that bad outcomes generally greatly outnumber good ones), the poor fucking individual replicators - whether organisms, cultures, or what have you - tend towards a maximally shitty existence.

Expressing selective traits, such as being willing to shoot the other guy in the face before he does the same to you... keeps that trait afloat in the gene/meme/etc pool.

It does fuck-all for the people expressing it, and the people around them, however. They're just so much fodder.

That's the human condition. On the large scale, there's little more you can do than lament it.

On the small scale, however, there's no pressing reason why any given individual needs to play along - and to do so is frankly immoral.

[Joykins]

SO we get to be moral or die. Such a lovely philosophy you have there, HNA, sounds almost Christian in fact :rolling:

[His Noodly Appendage]

No, generally we get to be moral and die...

[Joykins]

No, generally we get to be moral and die...

:p You're right, I botched it

[Matty]

So it's not morally abhorrent under the circumstances at hand? Isn't that the very definition of whoring yourself out?Sure, its all context dependent;. Theft is morally abhorrent, to a point, that point be if you needed to steal something in order to survive, you'd do it with no qualms.

Shooting someone in the face is presumably morally abhorrent to most people unless it came to a you or them situation in which case they cop it.


The way i see the soldiers is that they have simply handed over the decision making process to the higher command. More fool them in many cases, poor gullible bastards but i dont think you can make out like soldiers are innately immoral.

sesZ4LRia7c

[Notta]

These posts were originally in this thread. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=3545)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, that's fucked up.

The way I see it, shooting someone in the face is still morally abhorrent, even if the alternative is worse (thus making it the required choice), just like how a dogshit sandwich is still disgusting, even though you'd choose it in a second over gargling with a chainsaw.

And yes, the process of abandoning their responsibility to act morally is... well, technically, it's amoral. Just like... example... example... oh, selling industrial quantities of pseudoephedrine to anyone who wants it, no questions asked. If they turn out to be meth dealers, that's not your problem, right?

Wrong.

[TySixtus]

And yes, the process of abandoning their responsibility to act morally is... well, technically, it's amoral.

I've pointed this out to you before, but I'll say it again: the problem with your argument is that it would have to apply to everyone on the planet. By living in a society with laws and regulations, you have abrogated some of your moral free-will. There are things that you do everyday that you have no moral choice about but you do them anyway.

The military simply adds to those laws and restrictions.

So in order for your arguments against the military to make sense, you'd bascially have to claim that all forms of collective thinking and action are wrong. If not, you have agreed that there is no difference in kind between living in a society and living in the military, but instead just a difference of degree.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Right, we've all done at least one thing in our lives that was wrong to some degree, therefore the only difference between us and Adolf Hitler is one of degree...

[diana]

I'm curious, HNA...

You appear to be against countries having armed forces at all. (You will, of course, correct me if I have misinterpreted your comment comparing fighting for your country with defending a corporation, and your ongoing disgust with the "amoral" choices people make when they join the military.) How do you think it should work?

d

[His Noodly Appendage]

How it 'should' work is that people refuse to participate.

That isn't going to happen. Any culture where it did... would get replaced in short order by one where it didn't.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold individuals accountable for their actions. I see no good reason to treat a government-hired killer any differently from a privately-hired killer. Even if the state must treat them differently, I see no reason why individuals should.

Would you respect a hitman? ETA: would you respect a hitman who was on retainer, but hadn't actually been on a job yet?

Here's a hypothetical.

Suppose that in the near future, someone develops remote-control technology for humans. Anyone can go get a chip put in their head that allows them to kick back and surf the internet intracranially for a set period, while giving someone else complete access to their sensory and motor functions - and so hire themselves out as odd-job zombies.

Would you be liable for your body's actions while on a job? Would you be responsible for fully vetting clients ahead of time?

Suppose the technology included some very simple AI that would refuse orders obviously in contravention of the contract for the job. And suppose there was a video feed available in one window that allowed you to check up on your body, in case they were exploiting a loophole to do something nefarious - with the option to abort, though doing so could have unpleasant consequences outside of a controlled environment.

Would you have a duty to keep half an eye on that window, and a mental finger poised over the abort button?

[Joykins]

Right, we've all done at least one thing in our lives that was wrong to some degree, therefore the only difference between us and Adolf Hitler is one of degree...

* cue link to Way of the Master*

[diana]

How it 'should' work is that people refuse to participate.

That isn't going to happen. Any culture where it did... would get replaced in short order by one where it didn't.OK. Thanks. Clearly, the cell without its membrane will die. At least we agree on that: we need our militaries.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold individuals accountable for their actions.I don't either, so we agree on that, too. So my question now is, how do you propose to do this (more than it is done now) while maintaining the effectiveness of the military?

d

[darjeeling]

You really think it's like putting down the fork and doing some exercise? Really?

Really, it's a choice. It can be a choice between bad options. But still, yes, your trigger finger is under your own control. Whether you pull it or not is up to you. And if you do, that's your choice.

There's no difference between putting down the fork and refusing to follow a legal order?

Look, another bad analogy.

No, it's not. Being poor does not excuse killing people for financial gain.

So signing up for the military is like armed robbery and killing people?

Hm, yes, it's either one or the other. There can't possibly be any other options.

Glad you agree. If you were trying to make the opposite point, you'd surely be making an actual case for it, wouldn't you?

You've already shown that you're never going to attempt to view the issue differently, so trying to make an actual case for it would be a waste of time.

Also, every soldier shoots babies in the face.

An interesting assertion. Did you come up with it all by yourself?

What's the matter, Noodles? I thought you liked obnoxious hyperbole.

[TySixtus]

Right, we've all done at least one thing in our lives that was wrong to some degree, therefore the only difference between us and Adolf Hitler is one of degree...

Well when a person is reduced to making silly analogies in one line, I can tell I've made my point.

Essentially you're a fanatic about this issue and won't see reason. It's why I rarely engage in the conversation with you. Around and around we go . . .

[Notta]

Ty, thread's already Godwinned. No use trying to have a rational conversation now.

[His Noodly Appendage]

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold individuals accountable for their actions.I don't either, so we agree on that, too. So my question now is, how do you propose to do this (more than it is done now)

By cutting the bullshit reverence and back-patting and hero-worship piled on the military, such that people end up thinking that military service makes a fine criterion for being allowed to vote.

By manning up and accepting the unpleasant truth: that the state wants armed enforcers to do its dirtywork and protect its interests, same as every other cartel/ring/etc in existence. That the choice of entity you work for state makes no difference to the ethics of taking on such a job.

By cutting the self-serving lie that acting against your own conscience is somehow good, noble and admirable, if you do it out of obedience. Fuck's sake, divine command morality is bullshit, so where people get off trying to promote employer command morality, I will never know.

By refusing to hide behind people's cognitive dissonance: we sent Johnny to die, ergo it must have been both noble and worth it, so can we have your next son, please?

while maintaining the effectiveness of the military?

d

I don't think your military's existence needs to be preserved. I think it needs to be severely crippled. I think the tide of cynicism and disgust needs to rise so high it'd be a full-time job trying to keep enough troops to protect your own borders, and such that trying to pull another 'shock and awe' would severely compromise that.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Right, we've all done at least one thing in our lives that was wrong to some degree, therefore the only difference between us and Adolf Hitler is one of degree...

Well when a person is reduced to making silly analogies in one line, I can tell I've made my point.

Essentially you're a fanatic about this issue and won't see reason. It's why I rarely engage in the conversation with you. Around and around we go . . .

It's called sarcasm, ty. Learn it, love it, live it.

[Jobar]

Si vis pacem, para bellum- If you want peace, prepare for war.

The trick to that is preparing enough but not too much.

IMO we in the US have gone overboard, and our preparations are so frightening to much of the rest of the world we're working against our own best interests, if we truly want peace.

[diana]

Si vis pacem, para bellum- If you want peace, prepare for war.

The trick to that is preparing enough but not too much.

IMO we in the US have gone overboard, and our preparations are so frightening to much of the rest of the world we're working against our own best interests, if we truly want peace.Whether we've gone overboard is arguable, John, but we have gone much to far by invading sovereign nations who were not threatening us. For sure.

d

[diana]

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold individuals accountable for their actions.I don't either, so we agree on that, too. So my question now is, how do you propose to do this (more than it is done now)

By cutting the bullshit reverence and back-patting and hero-worship piled on the military, such that people end up thinking that military service makes a fine criterion for being allowed to vote.

By manning up and accepting the unpleasant truth: that the state wants armed enforcers to do its dirtywork and protect its interests, same as every other cartel/ring/etc in existence. That the choice of entity you work for state makes no difference to the ethics of taking on such a job.

By cutting the self-serving lie that acting against your own conscience is somehow good, noble and admirable, if you do it out of obedience. Fuck's sake, divine command morality is bullshit, so where people get off trying to promote employer command morality, I will never know.

By refusing to hide behind people's cognitive dissonance: we sent Johnny to die, ergo it must have been both noble and worth it, so can we have your next son, please?

while maintaining the effectiveness of the military?

d

I don't think your military's existence needs to be preserved. I think it needs to be severely crippled. I think the tide of cynicism and disgust needs to rise so high it'd be a full-time job trying to keep enough troops to protect your own borders, and such that trying to pull another 'shock and awe' would severely compromise that.Perhaps I didn't express my question in such a way that you could understand it. I'll try again.

I'm not arguing that only the military should be allowed to vote. I'm just trying to understand how you view the military and why. We've agreed that the military is necessary to a nation (mine and yours). You do understand, I take it (I know you to be a very, very smart man, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass) that there's a conflict of interest if the people who have sworn allegiance to a military for a given period of time can, without consequence, question or ignore the lawful orders of their superiors. Yes?

Just a simple yes or no will do here. You keep going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to understand regarding your position. Or you can go off on a tangent if it pleases you. Whatever. :)

d

[LoneWolf]

Sorry for dropping in so late in the conversation but I have been busy murdering, raping and pillaging.

:)

These threads used to piss me off. But they don't phase me so much anymore. I am confident in the choices I have made in my military career.

And that is the thing: We DO have choices when we are in the military. Yes, the ramifications for following our consciences may be more severe than they are for civilians but we have them nonetheless.

I've been given unlawful orders before. Guess what? I didn't follow them. If you are given an order and you can make a reasonable argument that it was unlawful in your judgment you aren't going to prison. Not in today's military (Speaking of the US). Worst case, if the Court Martial disagrees with your judgment, is you will be discharged from the service.

You have choices.

When you are a member of the military you are put in a position where you can do harm OR good. Even the guys and gals over in Iraq. For every person you show me doing harm over there I can show you someone doing good. Perhaps the harm is outweighing the good on the grand scale, but that doesn't wash away the good choices those individual soldiers made.

Now, I came into the military during the Clinton administration. I confess to questioning the motives of people who enlisted after it became apparent that the Bush administration misled the public about Iraq. Why did I stay in? Because I was doing a lot of good in my job; far more than I could have done as a civilian. But why were the new recruits coming in KNOWING that they would likely be going to Iraq?

Sure, some assholes wanted the opportunity to kill for the sake of killing. I'm not about to defend them. Others saw the pictures of innocent people being blown apart and wanted to come to their defense. Others wanted the free college and benefits and thought they would manage to somehow get out of combat duty. There are as many nuanced reasons as there were recruits. If you are going to judge them, judge them on their individual merits rather than grouping them all in one group.

My point is joining the military in itself is neither moral nor immoral. To determine that you have to look at the individual's intentions as well as their actions after signing on that line.

All that being said, it can be a tough situation for a young person to be placed in. It takes a certain moral fortitude to say "no" when ordered to do something you believe is wrong by someone put in a position of authority over you. I'm not certain how many people right out of high school have that fortitude.

And I will echo the sentiment "don't trust recruiters". I'm not saying there are no honest recruiters, I am sure there are some, I just know I have never met an honest one who lasted more than one tour.

[Octavia]

I also think it depends on the military in question. Granted I'm very far from an expert, but AFAICT the NZ military is pretty much there for peace-keeping and construction purposes, and for loaning out to Peter Jackson when he needs uruk-hai or people to build Hobbiton.

I'd have very little scruples in joining up with them, but there are other militaries around the world I'd find more difficult to join. You can't lump them all together, is what I'm saying.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I think the root of the problem is that you seem to be conflating inevitable and necessary.

A military is inevitable. One way or another, a nation without a military will become a nation with a military given sufficient time, just as a population of grazers will become a population of grazers and predators.

But to the continued existence of what, precisely, is the military necessary - and whatever it is, why should we value it above human lives?

Suppose every single military employee walked out tomorrow. What would be in imminent danger of extinction? It isn't the land. It isn't (barring truly exceptional circumstances) the people. The nation might find itself in possession of a brand new government - but the nation in any sense you care to define it would continue to exist.

So how exactly do you make out that the existence of a military is necessary to the nation? All it seems to be necessary to is the existing set of government policies.

But hey, let's grant that you think that the current set of policies should be defended; fair enough. What would be the basis for such a belief?

Why, that those policies are moral, surely. That they cause and maintain moral courses of action. If they don't do that - if they call for a person to do things that are frankly wrong, then what basis could you have for believing that they ought to be defended, and what reason could you have for obeying them?

There is a conflict of interest if people refuse orders. That's a given. What's not obvious is why that conflict should necessarily resolve in favour of the military. To achieve the military's ends is moral precisely to the point that those ends themselves are moral - and where those ends are immoral, the reverse applies. Inasfar as orders are unethical, I can see no reason why people do not have the ethical duty to refuse them, even at the risk of personal harm. If people aren't prepared to do so, I don't see they have any place putting themselves in that situation to start with.

And the tangent was, I think, a pertinent one.

If a zombie-for-hire is liable for the harm he is ordered to cause, then why should not a soldier be?

If a zombie-for-hire is responsible for vetting those to whom he contracts before he signs, then why should not a soldier be?

If a zombie-for-hire is responsible for ensuring he is not used for nefarious ends, even at the risk of personal harm, then why should not a soldier be?

I think it is very wrong for the military (and other interested parties) to engineer and exploit cultural loopholes that promote exceptions for these cases. I also don't buy the line that only perfect obedience can ever be tolerated and must be guaranteed in advance, no matter what situation may develop; there are plenty of enterprises that manage fine under horrendous conditions without any such assurance.

As far as I can see, both are simply abusive practices that allow the military to circumvent normal ethical limits on their operations.

What worthwhile purposes a military serves are ones that are ethical. If we ditched the requirement that ethics not be allowed to stand in the way of military operations, if we allowed military personnel to act as the military's conscience then imho, nothing of value would be lost.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Loney: what use, exactly is 'lawful', when the source of the orders is the source of the laws? I'd have thought that and $3 would buy you a cup of coffee..

[Celsus]

Sorry for dropping in so late in the conversation but I have been busy murdering, raping and pillaging.

:)

These threads used to piss me off. But they don't phase me so much anymore. I am confident in the choices I have made in my military career.
I do enjoy people talking about the military who've never been in it as much as you I expect ;)

FWIW and going back to the OP, Singapore has national service (i.e. conscription) for every male aged 18 and above for 2 years (used to be 2.5 years back in MAH DAY). The end result is they don't particularly vote very differently from our women anyway. Hell if they allowed only national servicemen to vote, we'd probably do things like scrap reservist training (bleach.) in a shot. So really the difference conscription would actually make is not what you'd think.

Now if they only allowed army regulars (i.e. the full-timers who sign 4+ year contracts with the military), hell NO. Except for officers, the regulars here tend to be illiterate buffoons who join because they've no better options elsewhere. It's changed slightly in the last 10 years, but during my fulltime service I still remember helping some of these guys to fill in forms because they could barely read or write.

[diana]

I think the root of the problem is that you seem to be conflating inevitable and necessary.

A military is inevitable. One way or another, a nation without a military will become a nation with a military given sufficient time, just as a population of grazers will become a population of grazers and predators.

But to the continued existence of what, precisely, is the military necessary - and whatever it is, why should we value it above human lives?

Suppose every single military employee walked out tomorrow. What would be in imminent danger of extinction? It isn't the land. It isn't (barring truly exceptional circumstances) the people. The nation might find itself in possession of a brand new government - but the nation in any sense you care to define it would continue to exist.

So how exactly do you make out that the existence of a military is necessary to the nation? All it seems to be necessary to is the existing set of government policies.

But hey, let's grant that you think that the current set of policies should be defended; fair enough. What would be the basis for such a belief?I see a military as necessary for defending the people in my country and for defending our constitution; that is, the basic ideas upon which my country was founded and for which, despite its flaws, it still stands.

I'd rather not take my chances with the military which would, in a short time, come in and take over if we were to disband ours. Good fences make good neighbors.

We do, of course, have a moral obligation to refuse unlawful orders. You do make a good point, though: who determines whether it's "lawful"? Presumably, that would be the Geneva Conventions--not my country. I would, however, be facing court martial in my own country if I refused to obey an order and the powers that be considered it lawful, ethical, etc.

At the same time, the system is set up in order to ensure compliance with orders to the highest degree possible. The reason is simple: a country's defenses must be dependable in order to be effective (hence my question about efficacy).

I acknowledge that we can be placed in a very difficult position, depending upon the needs of our mission, and like all people placed in a difficult position, we make different decisions depending upon our understanding of the situation.

I completely reject your notion that soldiers are not moral agents, but I guess I can understand how you might have such a view of us from the outside looking in.

d

[TySixtus]

Right, we've all done at least one thing in our lives that was wrong to some degree, therefore the only difference between us and Adolf Hitler is one of degree...

Well when a person is reduced to making silly analogies in one line, I can tell I've made my point.

Essentially you're a fanatic about this issue and won't see reason. It's why I rarely engage in the conversation with you. Around and around we go . . .

It's called sarcasm, ty. Learn it, love it, live it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what you actually wrote, unless of course you mean to say that you were being sarcastic and you weren't equating actual citizens with Adolf Hitler.

Otherwise I quite took your point, and as you can imagine I disagree. I have laid out my reasoning, you have merely resorted to ridiculous analogies. I think everybody reading knows which way the wind is blowing here.

[TySixtus]

If we ditched the requirement that ethics not be allowed to stand in the way of military operations, if we allowed military personnel to act as the military's conscience then imho, nothing of value would be lost.

Well once again this is shortsighted. There are a host of professions on planet Earth that require the abrogation of personal ethics to a larger scheme. Doctors and lawyers immediately spring to mind.

The problem here is that when you say "ethics" you're really saying "HNA's ethics" and we can quickly see that you think everyone should be thinking about these things the way you do.

[His Noodly Appendage]

We do, of course, have a moral obligation to refuse unlawful orders. You do make a good point, though: who determines whether it's "lawful"? Presumably, that would be the Geneva Conventions--not my country. I would, however, be facing court martial in my own country if I refused to obey an order and the powers that be considered it lawful, ethical, etc.

Given that your country deemed torture 'lawful'...


At the same time, the system is set up in order to ensure compliance with orders to the highest degree possible. The reason is simple: a country's defenses must be dependable in order to be effective (hence my question about efficacy).

And to ensure that the conscience of the military is determined by the weakest link in the chain of command, as opposed to the strongest.

I completely reject your notion that soldiers are not moral agents, but I guess I can understand how you might have such a view of us from the outside looking in.

d

Well, I'm not the one that claimed that.

Other people have disavowed moral agent status for soldiers, on the basis that their actions are not a choice - and so they cannot be held accountable for the harm they cause. They vere just followink orters, it's not their fault they bombed a fucking hospital.

Um, sorry buddy. Yes, it was. You had the choice to say "fuck off" instead of "yessir". You made your choice, so fucking own it.

Those dead kids? You did that. You cannot hide behind duress that you agreed to in advance. Fuck that. You hand someone a blank cheque, you can't claim you were robbed when they cash it.

Either you're responsible for what you did, or you're responsible for everything you opened the door to when you signed up. It can't be neither.

[TySixtus]

They vere just followink orters, it's not their fault they bombed a fucking hospital.

Um, sorry buddy. Yes, it was. You had the choice to say "fuck off" instead of "yessir". You made your choice, so fucking own it.

Those dead kids? You did that. You cannot hide behind duress that you agreed to in advance. Fuck that. You hand someone a blank cheque, you can't claim you were robbed when they cash it.

Either you're responsible for what you did, or you're responsible for everything you opened the door to when you signed up. It can't be neither.

If you were talking about people bombing hospitals on purpose you would have a point. Does this occur? You keep arguing against strawman arguments.

[diana]

We do, of course, have a moral obligation to refuse unlawful orders. You do make a good point, though: who determines whether it's "lawful"? Presumably, that would be the Geneva Conventions--not my country. I would, however, be facing court martial in my own country if I refused to obey an order and the powers that be considered it lawful, ethical, etc.

Given that your country deemed torture 'lawful'...And that is an excellent example of what I mean. Again, I do not deny that people with power will abuse that power. It is the role of every person involved to question the legality (and ethics) of orders based on the Geneva Conventions. I didn't claim this was an easy choice. I merely point out that the system is and must be constructed so as to reduce dissent as much as possible without quelling it altogether.


At the same time, the system is set up in order to ensure compliance with orders to the highest degree possible. The reason is simple: a country's defenses must be dependable in order to be effective (hence my question about efficacy).

And to ensure that the conscience of the military is determined by the weakest link in the chain of command, as opposed to the strongest.I disagree. Most of the military's "conscience" is, in fact, determined by the strongest links in the chain of command. It's just the instances such as your example of prisoner torture, where the decisions of the humans at the top were poor, that the responsibility falls to the people at the bottom. Such instances get a spotlight--because they are unusual--which make it appear as though the people at the top have no conscience. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I completely reject your notion that soldiers are not moral agents, but I guess I can understand how you might have such a view of us from the outside looking in.

d

Well, I'm not the one that claimed that.My apologies. That was my interpretation of your comment that soldiers have abandoned their responsibility to act morally, which is also a notion I reject. We do not abandon our responsibility at all (and even if we wanted to, it's quite impossible, because we must live with ourselves the rest of our lives).

You bring up another interesting point, though: moral actions vs. bombing (which I admit is a horrible juxtaposition, but stay with me here). In the AF, we call the problem this creates the "morality of altitude." It's similar to the morality of mortars, rockets, hand grenades, napalm, machine guns, and cannons. All of these have a high potential for "collateral damage." There are two problems inherent in getting rid of them, though: first, soldiers are far less likely to fire upon an enemy they can see and as such, are far less effective in direct proportion to the shortness of the range of their weapons. Second--and I think this one is insurmountable--a military which scales down or eliminates such weapons puts itself at the mercy of the militaries which don't. That is, now that weaponry has advanced to the point that all wars will have collateral damage, to give up our ability or willingness to use these weapons is to throw the fight.

This is why the world will never be free of nuclear weapons.

These are not nice facts but they are the facts. We are humans and will ultimately work to protect ourselves from the unknown, and weapons will only become more powerful--not less.

Those countries which are not able or willing to build such weapons or use them must either be protected by those countries which are willing and able or become the bitch of such countries. Nobody is off the hook. We're all in this together--even Switzerland.

Even you.

d

[Celsus]

HNA, if you really want to take a legal normative framework approach, you can. The Nuremberg trials accepted 'following orders' (and in turn evidence of 'giving orders') as a defense to a certain extent. That was because they wanted to target only the very top - mostly for political reasons.

At Nuremberg, the fear of the growing Soviet threat meant that the Allied powers did not want to decapitate the German military completely (for example Doenitz got off relatively lightly, as did Raeder, despite documented U-Boat atrocities such as slaughtering sailors of sunken ships in the water).

But the ICTR (Rwanda) in Arusha has clearly begun to distinguish this principle of justifiable action - in which following orders is not likely to excuse a soldier from gross humanitarian violations. The trial of Duch, former Khmer Rouge commander of the notorious S21 prison in Cambodia is also likely to demonstrate this further because his defense lies heavily on the following orders principle.

So while international legal norms are not that strong, they are improving and I can guarantee you that the relevant military brass are tracking very closely the extent of these new legislations (even in poor developing countries - I've worked with them). Even the CIA in the worst periods of excess, were documented as being very concerned about being prosecuted in things such as assassinations, and we live in a far better age. Officers especially know the limits in rules of engagement, and it may not be perfect but the steps are getting there.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I disagree. Most of the military's "conscience" is, in fact, determined by the strongest links in the chain of command. It's just the instances such as your example of prisoner torture, where the decisions of the humans at the top were poor, that the responsibility falls to the people at the bottom. Such instances get a spotlight--because they are unusual--which make it appear as though the people at the top have no conscience. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

My point is that in a perfect chain of command, the "fuck it"s flow downwards. The guy at the top says to take the city. The people at each level underneath take on successively lower-level implementation details, right down to the lowest-ranking superior commanding individual grunts. At any stage, any one of them says "fuck it", and gives the order to just lay waste - and that order spreads down the rest of the chain unimpeded. As such, the weakest link - the one least concerned with a least-harm approach - determines what actually happens.

In a chain-with-dissent, the "fuck you"s can flow back up to meet them, countering that trend.

Those countries which are not able or willing to build such weapons or use them must either be protected by those countries which are willing and able or become the bitch of such countries. Nobody is off the hook. We're all in this together--even Switzerland.


So why even bother?

[LoneWolf]

Loney: what use, exactly is 'lawful', when the source of the orders is the source of the laws? I'd have thought that and $3 would buy you a cup of coffee..

I totally get what you are saying there. I will only follow lawful orders. The president determines what is lawful. Therefore I must follow all his orders.

Except that isn't the way I see it and it isn't what was taught us in Warrant Officer Candidate School ( I don't think enlisted get this training and they should).

"Lawful Order" is a very simplistic term and I know my training, at least, went much deeper than that, although in the end it all amounted to common sense to me. Is the action you are about to take morally and ethically right or at least neutral? Yes, it is subjective and they recognize that. That is why we have courts.

So I wouldn't follow ANY order just because it came from the President. I would weigh that order against my own moral compass. I I felt it was immoral I would disobey it and state why. If my Commander chose to prosecute me regardless of my reasoning than I would make my case in a Court of Law. And if the Court of Law disagreed with my reasoning and decided to punish me then, oh well, sometimes life isn't fair.

But challenging unjust laws is something even civilians have had to deal with over the years.

[dancer_rnb]

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold individuals accountable for their actions. I see no good reason to treat a government-hired killer any differently from a privately-hired killer. Even if the state must treat them differently, I see no reason why individuals should.


Do you also feel this way about police?

[Celsus]

"Lawful Order" is a very simplistic term and I know my training, at least, went much deeper than that, although in the end it all amounted to common sense to me. Is the action you are about to take morally and ethically right or at least neutral? Yes, it is subjective and they recognize that. That is why we have courts.
I'm not sure about American soldiers, but UN troops (which the US does not ever send troops to join, by common agreement) get trained on the Geneva conventions and sometimes other relevant protocols before going out on duty. So while your commander may tell you to blow some shit up, you won't be excused if you knowingly violate the Geneva conventions (of which things like rape are now classified as war crimes/crimes against humanity).

That's in theory of course. A lot of countries will try to protect their troops from international scrutiny, and refer them to lesser punishments at home, as was the recent case of a UN mission in Haiti after soldiers were accused of rape and engaging underaged sex workers (this obviously not while on duty).

[diana]

I disagree. Most of the military's "conscience" is, in fact, determined by the strongest links in the chain of command. It's just the instances such as your example of prisoner torture, where the decisions of the humans at the top were poor, that the responsibility falls to the people at the bottom. Such instances get a spotlight--because they are unusual--which make it appear as though the people at the top have no conscience. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

My point is that in a perfect chain of command, the "fuck it"s flow downwards. The guy at the top says to take the city. The people at each level underneath take on successively lower-level implementation details, right down to the lowest-ranking superior commanding individual grunts. At any stage, any one of them says "fuck it", and gives the order to just lay waste - and that order spreads down the rest of the chain unimpeded. As such, the weakest link - the one least concerned with a least-harm approach - determines what actually happens.

In a chain-with-dissent, the "fuck you"s can flow back up to meet them, countering that trend.I'd argue that the chain of command you describe is anything but perfect.

Do such things happen? Yes. We are humans, remember. We aren't perfect, and any organization we create is not perfect, either. Even people with great responsibility make mistakes.

Does it happen often? I don't think so. At least, not in my military experience. The usual progression of any order from on high is generally informed by an outright fear of misinterpreting or going overboard as well as not doing enough. The fear motivates us to get it right. If I'm the one in the chain of command who issues the "fuck it" order, I'm the only who will fry for it. That is, my career is over at the very least, and I may be court-martialed and imprisoned.

We have such checks and balances precisely because we are fully aware of our own humanity and propensity to make mistakes or abuse power.

Those countries which are not able or willing to build such weapons or use them must either be protected by those countries which are willing and able or become the bitch of such countries. Nobody is off the hook. We're all in this together--even Switzerland.


So why even bother?I suppose if you have no problem being someone else's bitch, there is no point.

d

[diana]

"Lawful Order" is a very simplistic term and I know my training, at least, went much deeper than that, although in the end it all amounted to common sense to me. Is the action you are about to take morally and ethically right or at least neutral? Yes, it is subjective and they recognize that. That is why we have courts.
I'm not sure about American soldiers, but UN troops (which the US does not ever send troops to join, by common agreement) get trained on the Geneva conventions and sometimes other relevant protocols before going out on duty. So while your commander may tell you to blow some shit up, you won't be excused if you knowingly violate the Geneva conventions (of which things like rape are now classified as war crimes/crimes against humanity).

That's in theory of course. A lot of countries will try to protect their troops from international scrutiny, and refer them to lesser punishments at home, as was the recent case of a UN mission in Haiti after soldiers were accused of rape and engaging underaged sex workers (this obviously not while on duty).We are.

We're trained annually in the Law Of Armed Combat, which includes Geneva Convention rules and legal/illegal actions with combatants/noncombatants, etc. That applies to all people in the AF, at least, but I imagine it's a DOD rule for all military.

d

[His Noodly Appendage]

I guess the question is, why is a country that commits atrocities worth committing atrocities for?

[diana]

I guess the question is, why is a country that commits atrocities worth committing atrocities for?Just because the people who ran my government fucked up and fucked up royally does not mean I don't believe in what my country stands for. We got them out of office. I want them prosecuted, but I'm not sure we'll achieve that because democracies are ultimately run by politics.

I'm not happy with Obama's tacit acceptance of the status quo from the Bush era in a lot of things, either. I still believe in our system, though. It's designed to find and correct such flaws without necessitating outright revolution. It does, however, move slowly.

You'll find that many, possibly most, Americans do not approve of our last administrations torture policies. For this reason, I have a hard time thinking of the country as having committed these atrocities.

Just because I believe in my country doesn't mean I approve of everything they do, and the fact that they make mistakes is not in itself reason to stop believing in them. I don't believe anything or anyone is perfect, so I don't expect it. I expect effort to do what's right, and to correct what's wrong.

d

[LoneWolf]

I guess the question is, why is a country that commits atrocities worth committing atrocities for?

Nobody is worth committing atrocities for.

[His Noodly Appendage]

ya rly.

So why require that people agree to, in principle?

[diana]

I don't, HNA. Neither does LoneWolf. Neither do the vast majority of people who wear the uniform.

These things happen because people are people. As much as we want them to be perfect, to be above their own fears and the seduction of power, they aren't. So sometimes, this kind of thing happens. It doesn't make the country bad. It makes the people in charge and those who are involved in their immoral or unethical behavior bad.

d

[His Noodly Appendage]

Eh?

When you sign on the dotted line, you're agreeing in principle to commit the worst possible act that can squeak past the letter of the law.

If nothing is worth that, then why extract that agreement from people?

[LoneWolf]

Eh?

When you sign on the dotted line, you're agreeing in principle to commit the worst possible act that can squeak past the letter of the law.



No I didn't agree to that. Unlike many, I actually read my enlistment papers. I have also studied the UCMJ. NOWHERE in it does it say any such thing. It actually goes out of its way to state you are obligated to disobey unlawful orders. We can nitpick "unlawful" all day but in the end the only interpretation of what unlawful is that matters is the person who has to decide whether to follow it or not.

And would you do the worst possible act your boss told you to do as long as it squeaked past the letter of the law? When you agree to be someone's employee you agree to follow reasonable orders/instructions. The worst thing that can happen to you for disobeying is to be fired. The worst thing that can happen to me is to go to jail (as I said that almost never happens in these cases). But in both our cases we have a choice, we just have to live with the consequences of that choice.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Do you have trouble distinguishing legality from ethics?

[Octavia]

Noodly, is it the volunteering to do it that you have problems with, or simply the contributing to unethical behaviour by supporting it?

Because if it's the latter, you and I and everyone else here pay taxes that buy those bullets and bombs. We may not shoot them off ourselves, but we pay the people that do, and the people that order the people who do. I have some difficulty distinguishing between the morality of the people that choose to shoot, and the morality of the people who choose to fund that shooting.

Technically, the buck stops - and starts - with us.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Both - primarily the agreeing to functionally disable your conscience, but also the contribution. And I'd point out that paying income tax, which gets forcibly removed from you if you don't pay it, and the distribution of which you do not control, is a little less, well, direct than picking up a gun and shooting someone.

One individual refusing to pay tax is not going to prevent anyone from getting shot. But one person refusing to pull the trigger... is another story.

[diana]

You seem to have an indefensible position, HNA.

Since you seem to be against defenses, though, I suppose that's appropriate. :)

d

[LoneWolf]

I'm not going to debate it anymore. I feel like I am fighting a strawman here because what you are talking about in no way resembles the service I signed up for and have participated in for the past 13 years. I get what you are saying in theory. IF I had To disable my conscience to serve it would be immoral. But alas, that isn't how it works.

[diana]

I'm still trying to figure out if he thinks his country needs a military or not.

d

[darjeeling]

One individual refusing to pay tax is not going to prevent anyone from getting shot. But one person refusing to pull the trigger... is another story.

And it's totally inconceivable that not pulling the trigger could in some cases lead to even more people dying.

[Celsus]

Presumably such people would have also been against the invasion of Germany during WWII because some Americans might die.