viscousmemories

I want to preface this by thanking you for having this discussion, diana. For reasons you can probably puzzle out I've wanted to have a thread about this for a long time, and given past events and the fact that I believe you to be trustworthy, sincere and thoughtful, there isn't anyone I'd rather discuss it with.

Let me see if I can put it another way:

John is a civilian, who...

...believes that having a military for national defense is necessary and right.
...believes that using the military to wage war on Iraq is wrong.
...believes that active cooperation in an immoral act is itself wrong.
...is aware that war on Iraq is underway at this time.
...believes the likelihood of his being required to actively cooperate in the war on Iraq will increase significantly should he enlist.
...prefers to avoid doing wrong when possible.

Should he choose to join the military at this time?

I agree, but I was under the impression that our hypothetical person had concluded that the war is immoral on his own. I don't believe someone is accountable for immoral action if they're not aware that it's immoral, but if they reason that it's immoral and do it anyway, are they not acting immorally?

Right, and where do we draw the line? Isn't every American culpable to some extent for any war our military wages? Most of us actively participate in and benefit from the economy that funds the military. How responsible is the guy who works in the oilfields from which the fuel for the F16s derives?

But again, if he concluded on his own that the war in Iraq was immoral and unjust, is he not personally responsible for putting himself in a situation where the only way to save his own life or the life of his friends is to unjustly kill someone?

diana

I don't know what to say, Tom. That's quite a compliment. Thank you. (And frankly, I'm quite surprised this subject hasn't been discussed in this light before on this board.)

No. If he is convinced his presence in Iraq will violate his moral code (and he lacks the precise religious connections to achieve conscientious objector status), he should not join, because even if he does not deploy as the direct instrument of occupation, he is supporting that occupation. MOO (my opinion only). That is, he is directly serving to further the ends of something he personally deems immoral.

The question changes somewhat if he's already in with a commitment and you ask him to refuse a lawful order, though. (Before we pursue this discussion, what is your opinion of Brandi's position on morality as stated on the other thread?)

Apologies.

Yes...unless the alternatives open to them are less moral.

Wow...now that's the $20k question, isn't it? We are all responsible to some degree, if only for sitting idly by while The Powers That Be massaged and spun the truth that got us where we are. We all thought it was someone else's job to stop the maniacs, to speak up and say "What intelligence? Is it corroborated? Let's see it!" Particularly when the UN said they wanted nothing to do with it....

I initially typed "Yes, he is," but upon reflection, I'm not so sure. Is it unjust to kill someone who's trying to kill you? Is it unjust to protect your friends from such a person? Is it unjust to protect yourself from such a person? Does it matter whether you put yourself in that situation or not?

If I choose to walk down a proverbial dark alley in a big city somewhere and I'm attacked, is it just for me to defend myself? There must be some other dimension involved for me to make a negative call. You are, after all, on their turf. The only difference I can see is that you felt the war was unjust, but there's nothing inherently unjust about walking down a dark alley. Is this enough to destroy the analogy?

Consider this, though: I think it's safe to say that the initial strike of Iraq included no soldiers who'd signed up for that purpose. Those political wheels started turning (publicly, at least) after--probably well after--they graduated Boot Camp. The most immoral part of the whole thing, IMO, was our invasion in the first place. After we dropped so many bombs and overturned the regime (I forget how long that took, but it wasn't long), we went to the occupation and rebuilding phase. At that point, we were attempting to neutralize the insurgency, protect civilians and begin rebuilding. At that point, we were past the "immoral" part and into the morally justified part. I'm not seeing where your hypothetical lad fits into the picture, really.

d

viscousmemories

I'm glad you found it complimentary but it was really just a statement of fact. I wanted to be clear that I was having this discussion with you because I respect your intellect, not for any nefarious motive. I don't seem to be able to post much here without people assuming the latter, which is a large part of the reason I don't post much here. Hence this subject might've been discussed in this light previously, but if so I missed it.

Cool, on this we agree.

Do you mean her view that there are degrees of rightness? The lesser of two evils theory? I'm pretty sure I agree with that, but I'm equally sure I could be convinced that it's flawed reasoning. Thus it always seems to be with moral philosophy.


Fair enough. I think in light of our relativistic assumption stated above we can assume "immoral" to mean "the least moral of the available options".

I think a lot of people were saying that as loudly as possible, but that the American people are largely disenfranchised. That's probably getting too far into the politics of it for this discussion, though. Suffice it to say I don't believe anyone in America is completely inculpable for the actions of our government and/or military.

I think a more reasonable comparison would be kicking down the door to someone's home, barging in kicking and screaming, tearing stuff up and killing their family members, then shooting them "in self defense" when they raised a weapon in your direction. I don't think that could be described as a just killing.

Hmm... that seems like a bit of a rationalization to me, honestly. According to the dictionary an 'insurgent' is someone who revolts against thier government. Since we (I think we agree) unjustly invaded Iraq, neutralized their military and overthrew their government, aren't the so-called 'insurgents' resisting our unjust occupation? If so, isn't "neutralizing" them (which btw is a bit of an Orwellian euphemism for killing) just an extension of the unjust invasion?

Maybe again that's getting too far off into the politics of it, but at any rate it seems unreasonable to assume that everything post-invasion (assuming the invasion was unjust) is justified by a desire to clean up the mess we made. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in support of cleaning up the mess we made, I'm just hesitant to accept that killing the homeowner is a just act because he's preventing us cleaning up the house we ransacked.

Anyway I saw your comment that you're running out of time in the other thread, so if you wanted to cut this short feel free. My brain kind of hurts at this juncture anyway.

diana

If we're that disfranchised, then we haven't any control, anyway--or at least, we haven't enough to change the politics of the big boys. Doesn't that make your average citizen not culpable, then?

I would agree this is a fair comparison for the initial invasion. Are we talking about the morality of being there now or being there then?

If I thought the insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/you choose the label were simply trying to get us out, I'd agree. However, the evidence appears to support the idea that they--separate groups, incidentally--are vying for power and killing innocent civilians of their own country in the process. From the (admittedly limited) reading I've done on Iraq, this was predicted by Iraq historians/specialists within our own government should we ever overthrow Saddam's regime: the various groups he kept in check through sheer terror would create absolute chaos in an effort to gain power for themselves.

For this reason, I feel strongly that it would be very wrong for us to pull out, because if I understand the experts' opinions in this matter, the attempts to gain power through terrorist methods would continue without us there. It is our responsibility to seek out these individuals before they walk into a mall or police station with a bomb strapped to them.

I accept that I may not be widely enough read on this subject. I have, as mentioned, limited time these days. My moral judgment is based on what I understand the situation to be, which is all I can base it on, come to think of it.

Not only are the terrorists part of our post-invasion mess, but protecting those who are there to help the sick/wounded and rebuild infrastructure necessitates protection, as well. I don't see a way to get around the need to seek out suicide bombers and weapons caches, etc.

In addition to my need to commit so much time every day to my thesis work, I dropped that because the conversation had come to sheer repetition and Jinsky was getting angry and neither POV seemed superior--both give me cognitive dissonance, now that I think about it. I'm wondering if there's a third option that might solve the problems of assertion and circular reasoning that seem inherent in discussions of morals and belief, frankly, but I don't think so.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I'll return as I have time. If not, it's been a pleasure, as always.

d

Puck

Bravo, diana. I too, have wanted to breach this subject after that thread, but I didn't want to take the chance of insulting you in particular and any others in general. I was confused at how someone in the military at this time, dealt with this moral conundrum.

Also, I think it would be wise to consider a couple things when debating the military and todays conflicts. First, that some of us from the 60's-early 70's will have a strong reaction to military service based on the times then. It was considered by many to be immoral to be a part of the military then, and it was expected by many that one should go to jail or leave the Country before giving themselves to an immoral war. For someone who comes from that era, they may well still carry over much of those strong feelings. I myself do. Knowing that you, diana, are a person of morals and with a good brain, and you still serve, makes me open to rethinking my stance of not Viet Nam, but from there untill present. That's why I am so tickled to see this thread, and just who started it. Too, there will be many who were raised by the people of the 60's who will have picked up on those same beliefs and hold them strongly, also.

And too, for anyone who says that a non-military 'civilian' can't understand or speak out, please do remember who pays the bills. Just as you would like a little respect, so to do 'civilians'. You ain't so special.

As to what can be done? I don't know. I know our military is only as good as those who command it. I suspect that's one reason Powell was so popular among the public, he seemed quite sincere and like he had some morals. (too bad he proved that to be a lie, but I digress) And it's why I am confused as to why the military voted so strongly for Bush. I think the solution will have to come from inside the military machine itself, or the voters will have to raise hell and only elect those who would use the military for it's proper uses.

It seems that eveyrone is about wrapped up here, but I did want to say that I apprieciate being able to read everyones thoughts, albeit a bit too deep for a Puck's brain at times.

Hey, at least you could hold your own pretty well with it. It about made my brains explode wading thought it.

diana

And this is still the sentiment among many. I see it on this board regularly. I don't claim to know much, if anything, about Vietnam (it falls into that recent history vacuum in our history books Loewen wrote about in Lies my Teacher Told Me), but I surmise this war is just as unjustified--that is, immoral--as that one was.

I'd be hard-pressed to pass judgment on men who went to war--drafted or enlisted voluntarily--because in my opinion, there is no simple line of right and wrong. If a man goes to war because he wants to make sure his unit returns home safely, is it an immoral act? If his options are facing a court-martial and leaving his family high and dry or going to a war he feels is misguided and/or downright wrong, is that an immoral act? If an attorney gives the best defense to a client he knows committed the murder and the client walks, has the attorney committed an immoral act? I wouldn't want to be that attorney, but at the same time, I find it difficult to condemn him for doing his job. It may seem simplistic to some, but I feel the same way about the military's participation in a war I feel was misguided (to say the least).

You apparently missed the thread where it has been argued that I essentially have no morals because they change with my situation. I tell you this in the interest of full disclosure, you understand.

Unless you're making assumptions about what the military is like and why soldiers do what they do, you're fully qualified to determine for yourself whether the war is right or wrong, IMO. And yes...I always remember who signs my paycheck.

Ah. Well. I was just as flabbergasted as anyone, I suppose. I voted from Iraq, and the people I talked with voted Republican (except the black soldiers, not so oddly). Their reasoning? "Either way, we'll be here. At least with Reps in office, we'll get a pay raise."

After I heard that, I confess to still being just as flabbergasted as anyone. You would vote the party that sent your ass over here for selfish reasons back into office? Apparently so.

d

viscousmemories

Thanks diana, it's been my pleasure too. I'm not sure I have a lot else to add to the topic of whether military service is morally defensible. I think it is, for what it's worth, despite the fact that I think there are good arguments both ways. Bottom line is if I were faced with the choice of going to Iraq in the service of the US armed forces today I don't personally believe it would be immoral to do so.

My niece's husband is a firefighter in the Guard who spent a year in Iraq, and may be redeployed for another year next month. I met him for the first time when I went home for Thanksgiving, because I wasn't in town when he shipped out, which was shortly after he and my niece met and married. He seemed like a nice guy. Apparently he doesn't like to talk about his time over there, but through his father we heard that he got a medal or two - one for saving a couple Marines from a burning vehicle. Meanwhile his pay and benefits are supporting my niece and their little girl. All things considered I think it would be ludicrous to accuse him of acting immorally by serving.

My interest in moral philosophy stems from a desire to live 'correctly', whatever that means. Oddly enough I just recently realized that this doesn't mean I have to decide what living correctly means for anyone (or everyone) else, I only have to worry about what it means for me. Since I'm not about to re-enlist anytime soon (and probably couldn't if I wanted to) this issue is just about purely academic for me.

That doesn't mean I won't have an opinion about whether other's actions are morally correct or that I won't give my reasons or even attempt to persuade someone to share my view, but I'm trying to be a lot less self-righteous and critical of others in the process. Incidentally I apologize for not having come to this conclusion sooner, but hopefully you understand that like most people, I'm only ever trying to do what I think is right.

Good luck with your thesis.

veblen

who is going to attack us ? mexico ? canada ? i think it's naive to think we need a military .
as for 9-11 i would call that a criminal act as apposed to war , either way almost no amount of military expenditure can prevent this type of shit from happening .
but really get serious , what senario do you imagine unfolding where an army invades an unarmed america .

also if we took that 400 billion that we spend on the military and spent it on human capital we'd save more lives than were lost on 9-11. by far .

do the math !

let me tell you some thing about death , my mother died when i was 15 , it suxs. i wouldn't wish it on anyone .


peace