Jinksy

But for many people (ie. me ) the whole issue rests on that question. As PLP's pointed out it's absurd to call someone immoral for performing a necessary task.

I'm not interested in arguing the point personally, because I'm not well enough informed to deserve a view. My gut feeling is that most 1st world countries could get by with a much smaller military than they do (especially while they keep reneging on nuclear disarmament... not that I'd want any countries to feel cornered into keeping nukes because they'd disbanded their military), but my gut hasn't done any research either.

But the pro-military proponents haven't really made any argument in favour of the need, resorting to calling people who deny it 'naive'. Given the huge sums of money that go into the military, I think its the affirmative that has the burden of evidence.

Of course... I'm not qualified to know what lion taming is like, either. The question is whether any part of military service gives you insight into the overall effect of the institution.

It also occured to me that part of the reason threads like the one this came from generate such passion is that the military is so omnipresent, exceptionally self-righteous, and has a reputation (which is probably deserved) for attracting thugs. Obviously that doesn't relate specifically to any given individual, but I 'spect a lot of people have had bad experiences. Of the two times I can remember being sincerely threatened in my adult life, one was by a soldier, and one was by the son of a soldier (who was openly proud of his dad's profession). Obviously bad people don't = bad profession, but those kind of charmers don't do much to help keep this kind of discussion objective.

diana

I understand. For me, the whole issue rests on how you define morality, as I assume the necessity of a strong military--provided the country in question has something someone else wants. If I had a mansion, I'd invest in a security system. But as I said, anyone who wishes to take the discussion back to this question is invited to start his own thread on it.

True. In my comment, I was referring to general discussions that I've read on this board pertaining to the military, in which many people who have never served feel qualified to discuss what military life is like. Obviously, there are discussions about the military that do not require having been in to be qualified to speak about it.

Wow. Really?

Ah. I see. At least, I think I see.

We only have one service, to my knowledge, that will take criminals. It is also the service that requires the lowest IQ for admission, and makes every effort to retain even substandard soldiers. It also happens to be the largest service. In the eyes of the general populace, I'm rather accustomed to being assumed to be "in the Army." From my service, however, I'm no more "in the Army" than you are in Taiwan.

However, since we're grouping them together in this discussion--as is necessary, I think--I'll concede that the largest component of our military tends to include many people you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.

As to "omnipresent," that depends on where you live. All arguments concerning how people perceive the military will of course be from their own experiences, as yours was. Thus I have no problem countering this with the fact that where I grew up, I never even saw a military person in uniform until I walked into the recruiter's office at 18.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-righteous." Do we believe we serve a valid purpose? Of course. Are we always used in ethical ways? Of course not.

d

Gamut

I am active duty in the Air Force. Right now I am in the Middle East but that is irrelevant to this discussion since we are not talking about this war. But, my opinion on this war is not too far off from many of yours.

Anyway....

I cannot discuss the nature of my stateside work on an open forum such as this. I will just say that some of the comments made here are really ignorant.

Everyday I do valuable work that most people have no idea is even happening, so I can't hold your ignorance against you. But, I am a dedicated family person who tries to make a positive contribution.

If it weren't for the type of work that I and my fellow troops perform, the US would have been brutally attacked decades ago.

Without a strong military, the weak end up oppresed by the strong. Now you may say that is happening in the US already and I would agree with you.

You must however keep in mind that the people in the US have it pretty good. I'm not saying it's the very best place in the world or the perfect example of what a free society should be, but still pretty good overall.

You should see some of these Middle Eastern societies and maybe you'd think twice about who you are calling immoral.

Again, I think there are some real changes that can be made to imrove our nation. And that is our responsibility on an individual level to do all we can. No government is perfect, but some are far better than others. Even though ours may not be the THE BEST, it is still pretty good regardless of it's shortcomings.

I do respect and admire everyone's willingness to complain and try to make it better in the best way you know how, even if others don't agree with you. There is always room for improvement.

Having said all that, please hold your tongue and mind your words before proceeding to call me immoral. I am personally providing a very valid and necessary function for your safety and security on a daily basis in my stateside job.

I am not asking for your thanks or gratitude in any way. Just asking you to think before you attack me personally or say my work is worthless.

At least some people have the drive and desire to help in anyway they know how, even if you do not agree with their choices. I have to ask....in what ways have you sacrificed everything to help your country?

Ryan McReynolds

It seems to me that joining the military is either moral or immoral depending on the extent of the moral or immoral actions the military is presently involved in. If, like myself, you believe that the current administration is using and is likely to continue using the military in an immoral fashion, it would be immoral to join now knowing that you are likely to be complicit in these actions. During the 1990s, there might have been less moral imperative not to join, as there weren't many -- obvious -- abuses of power to object to.

The question for me is really whether it is possible for the military to be used primarily in a moral fashion at all. Certainly, there are disaster relief efforts. I would have supported military action in the Sudan. But I am unaware of any period in history in which the military wasn't misused at least as often as used justly, so for me personally, I could not imagine joining and being involved in what I see as the inevitable result. So I guess I would say that joining the military would always be at least somewhat immoral to me, unless it were literally to repel an invasion or something of that scale. Attacking Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11, to use a recent example, isn't quite the same.

There are also other secondary issues, such as whether it is moral to willingly join an organization that openly disciminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

I should mention that my brother is a Naval officer, and I consider him to be on the whole a moral person, so I am not speaking completely from the sidelines here. I am really not sure if I would consider his signing up to be moral or immoral. I know his intentions were good, but I don't think morality really has much to do with good intentions...

Ryan McReynolds

This is simplistic, and I know it wasn't the central thrust of your argument, but it is exemplary of the kind of blanket statements that are often used in support of military action. If the military were exclusively used for the purposes of freeing the weak from the tyranny of the strong, this would be a moving sentiment, and I would likely support it. If we existed in an alternate reality where there would be no unintended consequences, I would possibly be in favor of simply trotting the globe to free the masses. But in the real world, the military is used not as a liberating force but as a tool of imperial ambition. Unfortunately, the military itself is as often as not the very "strong" that the weak need fear.

diana

You've basically just said that joining the military is, in your opinion, immoral. (Or, I could also understand your comments to mean that you believe joining the military would always be immoral for you. I'm not sure which you meant, now that I think about it.) This is the sort of opinion that baffles me, because (again) I assume you understand that we require a military. If being in the military is essentially immoral, then who should it be comprised of? And why.

There also seems to be an assumption (and not just you, Ryan, although you implied it, too) that we don't need a military unless we need to go to war. Not only would it make our need for retaliation for wrongs (such as 9/11) logistically impossible, but it seems to ignore the fact that the thieves target the house that appears to have a payoff and is demonstrably unprotected. IOWs, our ongoing job is deterrence.

When I first read this, I thought, "What an unnecessary tangent!" But upon further reflection, I think you bring up a very good point that is, in fact, related to my question about the morality of being in the military. Ten or fifteen years ago, no one would have questioned the morality of working for Sears and Roebuck, say, because they discriminated against gays, or didn't offer gays benefits, or whatever. What happened that now, people are actually arguing that it's immoral to work for such a company because that company discriminates? Morality appears to be a very slippery beast to capture.

(Intriguingly, Yale and Harvard weren't fighting for the right to keep military recruiters off their campuses and continue to receive their federal funding because militaries support unethical wars; they were doing it because it's immoral to discriminate against gays. The juxtaposition of the two issues strikes me as most amusing.)

How would you define morality? It's high time we got to this, because I think it is the crux of the matter. I agree that intentions do not equal morality.

d

lao tzu

Hi, d,

I'm surprised no one has addressed what we mean by moral behavior.

This is an idea I've considered and reconsidered from the first time I encountered the idea of individual morality and its relationship to society. Perhaps more than I'm willing to unembarassedly admit, my opinions are informed by some of the more militaristic authors of the science fiction I enjoyed as a child.

In Heinleins' History and Moral Philosophy courses attended by the protagonist of "Starship Troopers," and later in the political debates revolving around the revolution portrayed in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", the question was restated in a fundamental form, which I hereby reduce even further.

When it is moral for an individual to perform an action at the direction of another?

My answer, subject to opposing argument, is that it is never moral to do so. Any subjection of one's own individual conscience to an outside influence is fundamentally an abrogation of morality. While we can quibble between whether obedience to an immoral command is amoral or immoral, the obedience itself is necessarily not moral.

Morality ends at the precise point where it becomes subject to another's discretion. At best, an individual can place oneself under command of a general organization after carefully examining the organizational structure, but having done so, that individual has performed his last moral action with regard to the command structure itself and his consequent actions under that command.

This is neither secret nor surprising, and as a result, a great deal of thought has gone into how a military should be deployed. In particular, we Americans have compromised by making our military subject to civilian command, itself duly elected by the general population. As added safeguard, we instruct our military in rules of combat that allow specific directives to be refused, though when under fire, such refusal can legitimately be answered by summary execution.

In sum, it could well be argued that any social organization beyond that of utter anarchy precludes moral behavior to greater or lesser extent, and that the lack of morality by the members of a society is necessary for that society's very existence.

As ever,
In peace,
Jesse

Jinksy

If I did, would you have anything to contribute? 'Cos I certainly wouldn't...

Ok, I was only talking about perception, not anything substantial, so it's not too important. Even so though, I expect several people (me again, I admit) would still instinctively react less favourably towards the institution as a whole for the fact that it contains such a large service with such low standards.

I don't mean in uniform. I just mean that it's pretty hard to go through life without meeting quite a few people who've served, are serving, or want to serve in some capacity. That's probably true of a lot of professions, but the military just seem (IME of course) a lot more vocal about it. Which is pretty much what I meant by self-righteous - that there's a general tendency towards bragging about their jobs, as well as more general conceits like strong patriotism. Combine that with the unsavoury characters we seem to agree the army tends to attract, and it's another reason why the topic provokes such visceral reactions.

diana

Hello, Jesse.

You're surprised because you're still new here. Then again...I continue to be surprised at the protracted discussions here that hinge on a single definition all can agree on, but no one goes there.

If I understand you correctly, forfeiting one's autonomy is immoral.

Does the reason for forfeiting moral autonomy affect one's morality?

How very interesting. Can you explain exactly why? It seems arbitrary to me at this point, the call that forfeiture of autonomy is perforce immoral. I'd like your reasons for believing this.

Just a tack-on to what I asked above: does this make children immoral? They are subject to their parent's orders. Or perhaps not, because the children themselves did not choose to submit their autonomy--but that would make prisoners, for the same reason, more moral than members of the military.

I've never found a reason to pronounce lack of personal autonomy, whether willing or not, immoral. The circumstance, to me, is morally neutral.

Well-said. This is the conflict that has occurred to me in the course of these discussions. I'm at a loss as to how it's reasonable to pronounce a behavior immoral yet acknowledge in the same breath that it is necessary.

Always a pleasure.

d

Ryan McReynolds

I don't think being in the military is wrong by virtue of the mere fact that it is a military, I just think joining the present military (and I'm speaking of the United States) while knowing to which use your efforts will be put is immoral, in so far as that use is immoral. And this is certainly from my point of view only. I do think that many people who join, even now, are doing it for what they pereive to be moral reasons... I just don't agree that these reasons are moral. Obviously I also happen to think my reasoning is right, or I would change it.

For what it's worth, I would consider "retaliation for wrongs (such as 9/11)" to be an immoral use of the military. Really the only bombat-oriented military actions I would approve of as a rule would be repelling actual invasion and ending genocide-scale abuses, or peacekeeping at invitation.

It really depends on where you draw the line at tolerating immorality. For some people it may be their own actions, for others the actions of their friends, for others their company, and for others their country. I typically hold pretty strict "theoretical" moral positions, but I'm pretty hit or miss as far as living up to them. I don't think it would be unreasonable at all to boycott a company for immoral behavior, and certainly to choose not to work for them. I wouldn't, for example, try to get a job with a church because I disagree with their ideology and activities.

Personally, I'm a utilitarian. I would define as immoral an action which hurt more than it helped.