One other thing, if she uses the excuse “I don’t get to choose which wars I fight in” is that a valid excuse?
I say no. She knew about the war when she joined. She could see that she probably would have to participate in it. She made the concious choice to be a part of it. She did, in fact, choose to be part of that war.
No.
That’s obviously a navy job.
I’ll just qoute Smedley Butler anyone fighting for this is immoral.
What, exactly, does this mean? Yes, she is morally responsible for her actions. She is not morally responsible for the actions of others. Did she, at any point, commit an illegal act? Was she given orders illegal under U.S. law, or even under international law?
I say no. She has done nothing wrong. If there was wrongdoing on the front lines – if an officer ordered his troops to kill civilians – then the blame is on them, not on the poor supply clerk stateside.
Otherwise, again, where does the moral fault stop? I voted for the guys who funded the war, and yet you’ve said I’m not responsible.
She doesn’t know that the weapons are going to be used improperly. She has every reason to believe they will be used legally, for the legitimate purposes of the Congressionally-approved mission.
Yep. Totally valid. If a war breaks out which is morally indefensible, she has to option of going to her c.o. and declaring herself a conscientious objector. She will not enjoy the outcome, but she would be in the clear as far as morals go.
If a specific event occurs which is illegal – a My Lai type offense – she isn’t responsible. The officers and men who performed the illegal act are.
You’re setting up a standard that no military, ever, in the history of mankind, could live up to. You’re demanding moral perfection, and, sorry, that isn’t an available option. You, yourself, cannot live up to it. No one, alive or dead (perhaps excluding monastics, hermits, holy beggars, and those on life-support in hospitals) could.
Again, if you are willing to draw a line that protects me, because of my voting and paying taxes, which actions support war, why are you unwilling to draw a line that protects a poor dumb supplies clerk who has no possible way of knowing her supply shipments are going to be misused?
What about the privately owned factory worker who makes the supplies?
What about the supply clerk or factory worker who makes first aid kits for the troops? Or what about the front line medic? Or the medical evacuation helicopter pilot? All of these support “the war effort.”
I don’t think you’ve fully defined the “contagion” of moral evil that attaches to a war. Either the contagion is transmitted, in some kind of degree, to everyone it touches, or else it is limited only to the guy who pulls the trigger. You cannot logically hold the supply clerk to be “evil” without saying that I’m “evil” too.
(This said, I am willing to accept a moral taint because of my politics. I accept a small – very small – degree of personal moral sin because of My Lai and Abu Ghraib. It was done by my country, by officers commissioned by my Congress, by troops supplied by my tax money. If a perfect moral entity were to sit in judgement of me, this could be assessed against me as an individual degree of collective moral sin. We The People committed My Lai and Abu Ghraib.)
I agree. Those that bring up the “only a tool” argument are off base. It is true that a soldier is similar to a knife in that it can be used for either good or evil. If someone wants to peel an apple and you hand them a knife, that’s good. If someone wants to kill someone and you hand them a knife, that’s evil. If a government wants to protect its citizens from death, becoming a soldier is good. If a government wants to kill others for other reasons, becoming a soldier is evil.
+1
Following that logic, I’d say joining the Canadian military would be a reasonably safe moral bet, given their extensive involvement with internationally sanctioned peace keeping operations. In the US, it’s more of a mixed bag as the system is biased towards trigger-happy Presidencies. Sort of like leaving your knife in a crowded bar.
But as has been pointed out, the moral standard set by yourselves is completely impossible for anybody to maintain. Even Canada has blood on its hands. America contributes a huge amount to humanitarian military missions - it’s not a Canadian preserve.
Moreover, Canadians have committed atrocities in places such as Afghanistan. Does that mean, therefore, that every Canadian soldier is guilty?
Your argument can only come to the conclusion that we should disband all militaries, now, and never undertake humanitarian missions for fear of atrocities, and frankly, just curling up in the corner.
And for what it’s worth, to people like Robert163 who insist it’s immoral to join the military and that’s that, well, that in itself is not an argument.
Clearly, there’s a number of people in this thread who believe it’s not immoral. As there’s no consensus on its morality, this is a matter of your opinion, not some universal moral constant.
Therefore until you can convince at least 75% of the country of your view, it’s not immoral. Just your opinion.
But that’s not an argument either… What Robert163 is trying to do is produce a chain of inference, much like a syllogism. War produces certain results; most commonplace systems of morality reject those results; ergo, war is immoral.
It is a valid way of going about making an argument. The fact that people disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong. The fact that people disagree with it, here, and are specifying exactly why, is what makes it a debate.
I think he’s wrong…but his approach is valid.
I won’t deny that the moral problems are knotty… but I also don’t want to be misunderstood.
I’m not going in for a guilt by association argument. I am saying that to the extent that the Iraqi War was immoral (debatable) those signing up for the military in, say 2001, risked getting their hands dirty in a pretty direct way. Specifically, they might have signed up for Afghanistan and gotten sent to Iraq. The US military doesn’t recognize Conscience Objection unless it involves all wars. Those who believe that some wars are just and others not take the risk of acting immorally* according to their own beliefs* if they join the US military. The moral risks of joining the Canadian military are positive, but a great deal lower, as their participation in dubious foreign adventures is lower.
Granted, but then I argue that anyone who joins the military knows that they are getting into and they are not permitted to window-shop their combat deployments. The US Army is deployed on the instructions of Congress, the people’s legislature; therefore someone defying those instructions is essentially giving two fingers up to the people (or one finger, given this is the US).
It’s reminiscent (I hesitate to say equivalent) to the whole debate about people in pharmacies refusing to sell contraceptives because of personal opinion - it’s their job to sell what they’re asked for. They don’t like it, they should have thought about it before getting the job.
Going back - saying, as I do, that the purpose of the Army, and everyone in it, is to do as they are told by Congress, then the fault is not with the Army but in fact with Congress for making the bad decision in the first place.
As Congress represents the American people, then that means America’s decision to invade was faulty. The blame does not fall on the Army.
To argue that the Army is to be blamed for obeying Congress is to suggest that it or the soldiers within it have the right to pick and choose their fights, and that would effectively make the Army utterly useless to everyone, and indeed potentially highly dangerous.
Where does it end, too? Do they only get to choose to opt out of the campaign, or can they opt out of particular missions, or even opt out of a day’s patrol because they feel a bit scared?
Well with respect I disagree. His approach is ‘I’m right you’re wrong, they’re evil, la la la I’m not listening’. His stance has been probed and been found to be full of logical flaws and contradictions, which haven’t been addressed.
You are really, desperately, clutching at straws here Malden.
You do notice that yourself, don’t you?
Can you explain how, rather than simply stating it?
I’m with **Trinopus **here.
Robert163’s approach may be lacking (as he has no concept of how to develop his argument) but the basic syllogism is sound.
So what? It is the development of the argument, the presentation of logic, opinion, evidence and counters to objections that create the argument at all. Otherwise all you have is an assertion made from inference. He might be on the right track, but without the rest of it, his position is ephemeral and unworthy of further discussion. YOu can’t just hand wave away everything and expect people to agree.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not think Robert has an argument at all. What I agree with is that Robert’s initial premise (that immoral acts by an organization impact the personal morality of members of that organization) is not an unreasonable starting point for a debate.
That the originator of the premise is unable to articulate support fo rhis position does not invalidate the question.
Hmm, I see what you mean, actually. What you say is a fair comment. I guess one of my disagreements with Robert163 is his claim that the solution is therefore to implore everyone to not join the Army, rather than the more sensible approach of figuring out how to stop such abuses taking place through normal legislation and investigation.
Getting back to the individual volunteering to serve in the US military … . it’s pretty clear the US Gov is itself a pawn of vested capitalist interests - what the hell are all those election dollars paying for?
So if you want to serve the interests of the owners of capital, given the USA is still the empire of the day, you’re sure going to get the chance in that particular military machine.
Not much chance of winning, but you will get to blow up plenty of shit and civilians somewhere.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Regards,
Shodan