Do the military have honour, and do we need them in the first place?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by roger

Not to mention that the article specifically states "Both researchers said that colleges that relied on an honor code appeared to have less cheating."

While I can't, as a skeptic, accept as evidence an article that mentions colleges "appeared to have less cheating," I agree, due to personal experience that it is likely true.

At West Point, there are those who try to sidestep the Honor Code, and a larger number who wear it publicly like the self-flagellants you see on some religious holidays. For the most part, though, it is simply woven into the fabric of daily life. One does not lie. One does not cheat. One does not steal. Those found to have done so are put up for expulsion; they may be allowed to stay, but the burden to demonstrate that such a course is best is on them.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

I do. Heh. Have you seen the Ted Turner produced "Gods and Generals?" Jackson is its central character, and the movie almost deifies him. It's long and tedious if you're not into that sort of thing, but I enjoyed it.

I saw it. Thought it was uneven. Wished Robert Duvall had played Lee in Gettysburg, its predecessor, instead of the appallingly miscast Martin Sheen. Martin Sheen? What were they thinking? Lee was a tall man, probably one of the tallest on the battlefield, and they picked Martin Sheen to play him? Duvall, OTOH, was perfectly cast. Looked like Lee, and projected that stern, quiet dignity that you associate with the man.

Thought Jeff Daniels was brilliant in Gettysburg as the scholar-turned-warrior Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (the scene at Little Round Top where he comes up with the idea to have his left wing do a wheel and charge down the hill with nothing behind their bayonets but their bodies, gives me chills every time I replay it), but he was too old and heavy for Gods and Generals.

Don't remember the name of the guy who played Jackson in Gods and Generals, but he was the same guy who played Pickett in Gettysburg. I thought he chewed the scenery too much in Gettysburg, but was utterly convincing in G&G.

G&G, I thought, did a particularly good job in evoking what must have been the sheer terror and horror of Fredericksburg; men being mown down like wheat before a scythe, the survivors using the bodies of the dead as protection from the bullets being shot at them, and spending a freezing night huddled up against two or three dead bodies for both warmth and protection.

Too bad neither movie got the attention they deserved; they got the history pretty right, and considering how many people can't keep straight whether the Civil War was before the Revolutionary War or after WW I, it's a shame more people didn't get a little much-needed history.

[Walk The Line]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

I suspect that UVA has got an honor code/concept

[sarcasm]This is the first time I've seen the words "UVA" and "honor" in the same sentence.[/sarcasm]

[Garrette]

BPSCG, I mostly agree with your analysis of Gettysburg, especially Martin Sheen. It was a horrid choice, but the rest was so good (except for the crappy beards), I don't mind it so much. I do, however, disagree that Pickett was over the top (haven't heard "chewed the scenery" in ages--thanks for the nostalgic chuckle).

My kids get exasperated with me when I ask them history questions out of the blue while we're sitting down at dinner or elsewhere.

My oldest son wrote a very nice paper on the Battle of the Somme about a year ago (with my help in researching it). He was bragging about it recently to family members, and when the conversation died down said something like "Yeah, when you really read about it you realize that World War Two was tough."

Everybody but me nodded sagely.

"Uh, Ryan? The Somme was in World War..."

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I saw it. Thought it was uneven. Wished Robert Duvall had played Lee in Gettysburg, its predecessor, instead of the appallingly miscast Martin Sheen. Martin Sheen? What were they thinking? Lee was a tall man, probably one of the tallest on the battlefield, and they picked Martin Sheen to play him? Duvall, OTOH, was perfectly cast. Looked like Lee, and projected that stern, quiet dignity that you associate with the man.

This is a nit-pick, and I do not claim to be a Lee scholar, but I'm nearly certain Lee was about 5'10". That's what the lady who leads the tours at Lee Chapel told us, and I think I've heard it elsewhere as well. Duvall did an excellent job as Lee.

Quote:

Thought Jeff Daniels was brilliant in Gettysburg as the scholar-turned-warrior Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (the scene at Little Round Top where he comes up with the idea to have his left wing do a wheel and charge down the hill with nothing behind their bayonets but their bodies, gives me chills every time I replay it), but he was too old and heavy for Gods and Generals.

I have "Gettysburg" on DVD, and have for quite some time, but I've never watched it. Bad AS, bad.

Quote:

Don't remember the name of the guy who played Jackson in Gods and Generals, but he was the same guy who played Pickett in Gettysburg. I thought he chewed the scenery too much in Gettysburg, but was utterly convincing in G&G.

He was terrific as Jackson. That was quite a performance.

Quote:

G&G, I thought, did a particularly good job in evoking what must have been the sheer terror and horror of Fredericksburg; men being mown down like wheat before a scythe, the survivors using the bodies of the dead as protection from the bullets being shot at them, and spending a freezing night huddled up against two or three dead bodies for both warmth and protection.

Agreed. I've been to Fredericksburg, and I imagine you have too. It's eery standing on some of those berms.

Quote:

Too bad neither movie got the attention they deserved; they got the history pretty right, and considering how many people can't keep straight whether the Civil War was before the Revolutionary War or after WW I, it's a shame more people didn't get a little much-needed history.

They just weren't commercial enough, and they're very long.

AS

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

I have never been in the military, but my understanding is that career officers take the concept of honor very seriously, far more seriously than we civilians. Maybe it's because there are human lives at stake.

Career officers? What about us enlisted guys - were we chopped liver?!? Well come to think of it yes - many times we were.

I was 5 years active (Navy) and a working man (enlisted). Most officers I wouldn't give a hoot in hell about. Except the officers on subs. And officer-pilots. Both good. You respected them - but they returned it. Surface fleet officers? Holy friggin' Toledo.

Speaking as an enlisted man, the overriding concept - more than something as abstract and nebulous as honor - is the elimination of individuality. It's not about you - it's about the team. The squad. The company. The battalion. The regiment. The crew. In the Navy that includes the ship - being a part of the ship - because you are living on a floating residence. If it goes - you go. And it can go all too easily.

You get it right away - in boot camp. What they are trying to beat into you over those 10 weeks is the idea that you must always first think of your group long before you think of yourself. A totally alien concept in the civilian world, especially one like the American civilian world. Where the individual is King or Queen.

Amazing things can happen when the individuals in a military group operate as a true unit. Usually positive, within the context of the task or tasks at hand. Sometimes not.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

I have "Gettysburg" on DVD, and have for quite some time, but I've never watched it. Bad AS, bad.

Daniels (as Chamberlain) is the star of that movie. You see the college professor, smart guy, but obviously not a career military guy, still commanding the respect of his troops and of the mutinous second (? I don't recall for sure) Maine volunteers he was saddled with, with his quiet, but persuasive demeanor.

Then at Little Round Top, the college professor gets sharper in his instructions, telling his left wing to refuse the line (i.e., turn back 90 degrees), and then, after several Confederate attacks are turned back and they're out of ammo, he calls his officers together and explains how they're going to straighten out the line and charge down the hill. Again, still the college professor, but just much more clipped and taciturn, still soft-spoken. He tells his officers to return to their positions.

Then you see his eyes get big as doorknobs, and you see his pupils vibrating as the animal warrior suddenly erupts out of him as he bellows, "Bayonets!!!" And of course, the music swells up to a tremendous climax as they go bucketing down the hill.

Even if you can't find the time to see the rest of the movie, at least pick out that scene. As I said, gives me goose bumps every time, especially in surround sound.

[Azure]

Good post Conspi.

Ivor, have you ever served in the military? And if not, why pose such a stupid question as you have?

I would like to know what honor you're talking about as a civilian? Most civilians would stab their next man in the back if it benefited them.

Go watch Band of Brothers, maybe you'll learn a tad bit about the honor bestowed upon the military man.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by Azure

Good post Conspi.

Ivor, have you ever served in the military? And if not, why pose such a stupid question as you have?

I would like to know what honor you're talking about as a civilian? Most civilians would stab their next man in the back if it benefited them.

Go watch Band of Brothers, maybe you'll learn a tad bit about the honor bestowed upon the military man.

Agree with your premise, Azure, that it is difficult to draw parallels between military honor and civilian honor. The major problem is determining a common reference point between military life and civilian life. They are so radically different.

I'm not even sure what civilian honor is. Rather amorphous, I should think. Very individualized, possibly showing itself in fits and starts. If at all. And self-defining, with the definition changing even within the scope of the individual evaluating it. Based on time, place, circumstance and so forth. It's exceedingly tough to get a handle on civilian "honor".

Not easy to define honor in the military either. There, we dealt more with concepts of cohesiveness and work and discipline and loyalty and unity and strength and camaraderie. Us enlisteds, that is. As most folks know, the military is actually the rather tenuous marriage between two distinct groups: Officers and Enlisteds. I don't know what they teach officers at Officers Candidate School or the Academy or ROTC but I'm sure a lot of it is hooey. Maybe they use "honor" in officer courses a lot, but I suspect the classical ideas of honor are a bit outdated in today's modern military. Like so many old-fashioned concepts, it has basically been overrun in many respects.

Military honor is also open to interpretation. For example, the enlisted man who found the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib and decided to report it. Was he acting honorably? I think so. Lots of others don't. His unit basically doesn't. His hometown ran him and his wife out of town. But I think he acted bravely and honorably. Heroically, even. Because sometimes - the honorable thing to do is to go against the unit. From a certain point of view, such as my own.

[Nathyn]

The concept of "honor" is rooted in deontological ethics.

All ethics are inherently intuitive and I frankly find duty-based ethics to be rather stupid. If the rightness of an act cannot be justified by reason, but it is right solely upon the basis of an axiom or an authority, then it is not possible to comparatively evaluate ethics.

The concept of "duty" and "honor" is emphasized by all militaries of the world to make them more loyal and better killing machines; that's all. When ethics cannot be evaluated, they must obey any command. And there are unfortunately many who buy into it. An act is not "honorable" in the military unless you are 100% certain that a judge would rule in your favor.

A country does not need either a military or national security in order to survive, unless it is under threat. Switzerland's army is composed solely of militias and Costa Rica has no military at all. And there are many nations which do not have the kind of Orwellian national security as the U.S. and the U.K..

Unfortunately, however, militaries and national security agencies become self-perpetuating: When we have a military and national security, we can afford to piss off the world by, for instance, invading random countries with no casus belli. So if America or the United Kingdom were to abolish their militaries or national security today, it would be in grave danger. From a cost-benefit analysis, these institutions must exist.

But the point is: Had we never established them to begin with, we would derive our strength from alliances and from diplomacy, as nations like Costa Rice and Switzerland do.

[ConspiRaider]

Originally Posted by Nathyn

The concept of "honor" is rooted in deontological ethics.

All ethics are inherently intuitive and I frankly find duty-based ethics to be rather stupid. If the rightness of an act cannot be justified by reason, but it is right solely upon the basis of an axiom or an authority, then it is not possible to comparatively evaluate ethics.

The concept of "duty" and "honor" is emphasized by all militaries of the world to make them more loyal and better killing machines; that's all. When ethics cannot be evaluated, they must obey any command. And there are unfortunately many who buy into it. An act is not "honorable" in the military unless you are 100% certain that a judge would rule in your favor.

A country does not need either a military or national security in order to survive, unless it is under threat. Switzerland's army is composed solely of militias and Costa Rica has no military at all. And there are many nations which do not have the kind of Orwellian national security as the U.S. and the U.K..

Unfortunately, however, militaries and national security agencies become self-perpetuating: When we have a military and national security, we can afford to piss off the world by, for instance, invading random countries with no casus belli. So if America or the United Kingdom were to abolish their militaries or national security today, it would be in grave danger. From a cost-benefit analysis, these institutions must exist.

But the point is: Had we never established them to begin with, we would derive our strength from alliances and from diplomacy, as nations like Costa Rice and Switzerland do.

(bolding mine)

Alliances? If the entire globe agreed to no more war, alliances would be unnecessary. Who would we ally ourselves with? Everyone is on our side! Alliances imply a hedge against conflict, or potential conflict. Therefore your two mentioned small countries aren't out of the woods when it comes to an issue of war.

Costa Rica's a small country. 3 million people. New York City has almost triple their population. And their peace is rather recent. Seems to be working for them, for now. Good. Switzerland is a small country. Just over 7 million people. NYC still has it beat in that respect. Strategically located. An oddity, an exception. Also good.

If people in cities committed no crimes against persons or property, we wouldn't need police forces either. The establishment of such is an acknowledgment that we have not yet solved certain social issues of violence and greed. The same applies to countries. We're not there yet, not by a long shot. Watch what happens when the Global Warming digs its claws in, and forces huge population migrations across the world. You think that's going to go nice and easy? I don't think so.

Nearly all military people (other than a few knuckleheads) who have been under fire wish for universal peace more fervently than the rest of us. They have firsthand experience of how bad it can get. So you really cannot put this on the members of the military. I'm sure if tomorrow the U.S. Military was tasked only with national and international missions of giving aid, comfort and rescue - they 'd LOVE it (other than the few shoot-em-up knuckleheads).

Politically and diplomatically, of course the world can avoid organized slaughter as a choice. I'd like nothing better. So would just about everyone. However, everyone MUST agree to be bound by the non-use of war or warlike actions, across the entire world. Until that happens - those military guys and girls have to stay, unfortunately, at their posts. And to succeed, they must also continue to follow a set of behaviors that has no parallel in civilian life. Such as very rigid loyalty and unity and maybe - honor.

[Nathyn]

I should think that smaller countries face more, not less danger.

[Schneibster]

Probably the best of the arguments against the OP; still a bit short, IMO, but that is a defect in the subject rather than in the arguments (or the arguer).

Originally Posted by Nathyn

The concept of "honor" is rooted in deontological ethics.

This is correct.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

All ethics are inherently intuitive

This is incorrect. "Intuitive" implies that determining the correct ethical choice is simple in any case; however, cases exist that followers of almost any school of ethics would admit are very difficult. Attempting to make decisions intuitively in these circumstances is unlikely to result in ethical actions.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

and I frankly find duty-based ethics to be rather stupid.

Being into descriptive ethics myself, I at least nominally agree with you. I do not, however, share your contempt for them. I am not yet convinced that there is any "best way" to reach ethics; I believe it is possible that there are many different systems of ethics that will yield the correct action in at least most, if not all, situations. In fact, I believe that this is far more likely to be true when dealing with "right vs. wrong" than when dealing with "right vs. right" situations; it is in this last category that I believe my own ideas and those like them are superior in their ability to discern the correct course of action and minimize suffering.

Since not all here may follow ethical philosophy, I will give an example. No system of ethics denies that stealing is wrong, or that forcing someone to engage in sex against their will is wrong (at least no system of ethics that pretends to be compatible with human social dynamics does). These are "right vs. wrong" cases. However, different systems of ethics DO give different answers in questions of equity; for example, Farmer John's $50,000 prize bull gets loose accidentally and tramples and eats $50,000 worth of Farmer James' corn. Farmer James shoots the bull. Does anyone deserve to be paid anything, and if so, who and how much? And who gets to eat, or has to dispose of, the dead bull? Ethical systems might well disagree on this question.

I'll stop here for a moment and note that from the archaic concept of "honor" we have ascended to a conversation about ethics. I learned of the concept as a young adolescent while reading Scott Forester's books about the fictional Horatio Hornblower of the real Royal Navy, and it was a formative concept for me. It's worth parenthetically mentioning that despite the fact I am a natural born US citizen, my personal hero is Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson. I am something of a history buff, particularly military history, and Nelson's abilities at tactics, strategy, and logistics, coupled with his ability to motivate only partially willing men to do their best in deadly danger, and his undeniable personal courage and character, make him a heroic figure that in my mind stands above all others. A highlight of my life was a journey to London and the chance to stand in Trafalgar Square.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

If the rightness of an act cannot be justified by reason, but it is right solely upon the basis of an axiom or an authority, then it is not possible to comparatively evaluate ethics.

I question not this statement, but its assumptions. While I agree that if that were the case, the ethics of "military honor" (and I most emphatically disagree with earlier statements that it somehow differs from "civilian honor," a conversation I'll get into after I'm done here) would be questionable to the degree that the source of authority is questionable, I do not agree that that is the derivation of honor (much less "military honor," whatever that might be conceived to be). I furthermore disagree that the actions of members of the military, enlisted or officer, need be unethical. That, ultimately, is your premise: that military actions, because they must necessarily involve both killing and the imposition of authority against the will of a large group willing to kill and risk death to avoid that imposition, must therefore be unethical. It is against this premise I argue.

I believe that as with all actions, there are ethical and unethical means of fighting, and reasons for fighting. For example, I don't think there's a lot of question about the ethics of Britain opposing Germany in WWII. Nor do I think there's a lot of question about the US supporting Britain, although there is more than for Britain. I think that Germany's means and reasons were both highly questionable in that conflict, as were Japan's.

As far as individual actions taken by the Allies in that war, I believe that the Dresden firestorm was questionable, though not out-and-out unethical; Zeiss Ikon was in Dresden, along with ammunition factories, but most important were the railroad marshaling yards. It is arguable that the firestorm was not required to achieve the stated goals; it is also arguable that it was. German claims at the time of hundreds of thousands of dead have been reduced substantially to well under 50,000, perhaps even as few as 20,000. While this is an enormous loss of life and must not be trivialized, it is not half the population of the city as the earlier figured claimed, nor even a tenth. The reason for it, however, appears to have been to delay the Red Army. So we see that this action occurred near the end of the War; the Third Reich was already crumbling. The only motivation was to get more land than the USSR. This motivation renders this act at minimum reprehensible, and at maximum outright immoral.

Hiroshima had multiple justifications; while somewhat questionable, arguments that it was fully justified are far stronger than the arguments in favor of Dresden. Hiroshima was a legitimate and very high-value strategic military target, both as a base and as a manufacturing center. With only two available weapons, the US could not afford to use one in a relatively harmless demonstration; a significant military target had to be struck, and what target does one pick for a weapon capable of knocking buildings down at a range of miles? Nagasaki is more questionable, but late research shows that there was significant military and political will to continue the war even after the destruction of Nagasaki; in fact, a coup was attempted but suppressed when Tojo declared that he would surrender after Nagasaki, and the supposed surrender message received after Hiroshima was not a legitimate official attempt at surrender by those political and military leaders; they were still trying to negotiate what the US had determined, after Bataan and the Rape of Nanking, would be an unconditional surrender. It was Truman's firm resolution to see to it that Tojo and the others were at least imprisoned, and perhaps even executed, for the actions they had ordered during the war, and for that an unconditional surrender was required. Given those actions, I agree with Truman's resolve; the war crimes committed in the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia are less well-known than those of the Nazis, but no less horrifying. So I end up simply not buying the argument that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were as questionable as Dresden.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

The concept of "duty" and "honor" is emphasized by all militaries of the world to make them more loyal and better killing machines; that's all.

No, that's not all. Let's keep in mind that an army's job is not merely to fight, but to avoid war crimes, and to STOP WHEN TOLD TO. That last is the most important. Think about it. Furthermore, some of the most horrifying atrocities of the 20th century were committed by armies that had the concept of duty, but no accompanying concept of honor as we would recognize it; instead, they substituted pride. And I would point to the armies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII as among those. Other examples will come to the mind of the well-educated.

I think, in other words, that you have confounded these two concepts, duty and honor; I admit that it seems natural to do so, given the deontological nature of the ethics of "military honor," but I point to the counter-examples above to show that in fact, these are not the same concept, or two outgrowths of a single idea, but two different ones, with differing roots and differing results.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

When ethics cannot be evaluated, they must obey any command. And there are unfortunately many who buy into it. An act is not "honorable" in the military unless you are 100% certain that a judge would rule in your favor.

Not so. Many who have not served are not aware of it, or hear it but forget, but no one who has served ever does: it is the duty of every member of the US military not merely to ignore an illegal order, but to report it and ensure that the giver is held responsible by higher authority. An illegal order is an order to omit or commit an action that is legally required or is illegal, respectively. If you follow an illegal order, you may not claim that it was an order and you had to follow it in your defense. You are expected to be able to evaluate orders quickly to make sure that they are in fact legal. Your only defense might be that you believed it was a lawful order; and that seems a shaky defense to me. This in turn implies a strong sense of ethics, along with training in ethics; both are needed for this to be successful with a majority of soldiers.

I need to stop and point something out here. You are objectifying the military. People become members of the military and they stop, for you, being people. The ethical implications of that attitude aside (and they are not particularly attractive, I must say), I am here to tell you that people do not stop being people because they either join the military, or engage in combat. They do not stop making ethical evaluations of their every action. In fact, the act of killing damages them; they feel worth less because they have taken lives. This feeling can lead to suicidal depression. So to say that people in the military have no discernible ethics is not merely incorrect, but inhumane.

Originally Posted by Nathyn

A country does not need either a military or national security in order to survive, unless it is under threat. ... So if America or the United Kingdom were to abolish their militaries or national security today, it would be in grave danger. ... But the point is: Had we never established them to begin with, we would derive our strength from alliances and from diplomacy, as nations like Costa Rice and Switzerland do.

I point to Germany and Japan in WWII; I point to the USSR; and I point to China, which is growing, which has the largest population in the world, which has an abominable human rights record, and which will be looking for more resources in the near future. And I disagree. And I remind you that the stated goal of EVERY ONE of those governments was world domination; and one of them, and perhaps eventually the one that poses the most threat, still exists.

I do not state that the US always or even usually uses its military might in an ethical manner; but by that I mean, not always for ethical reasons, not that we use unethical means. In general, the means used by the military are within the laws of war, despite a great deal of whining and misrepresentation by those who believe that all military action is unethical, for any purpose by any means. I point to the definition of white phosphorus grenades as "chemical weapons" in this regard; white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. This is nothing but an attempt to smear. And in general, unethical acts are found out, and are punished.

The day may come when no military is needed; but I do not believe it. The only day I look to when no military is needed is the day the last human dies.

I'll discuss the putative differences between "military ethics" and "civilian ethics" in a later post.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

History is written by the winners who, amazingly, always seem to find a positive spin to put on their actions. Are there any German historians who agree with the bombing of Dresden? How about any Japanese historians who agree with the A-bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Wasn’t the one A-bomb (with the threat of the other) enough?

History isn't always writen by the winners. Thucydides was an Athenian after all. And no, the Hiroshima bomb was not enough because the Japanese high command was still planning on defending the homeland until the last drop of Japanese blood. The U.S. high command had learned the lessons of Iwo Jimi and Okinawa and wasn't prepared for some of the carnage that would be visited on Japan if an invasion had to be ordered. Many calculations say that there would have been a million U.S. casualties and over 10 million Japanese.

I would have hated to have been Paul Tibbits on Aug. 7th, 1945, about to kill 150,000 people, but I'd hate even worse to have been Harry Truman in early 1946 setting the wheels in motion for 11-20 million people to die.

[Big Les]

A post by AK-Dave on the original thread which somewhat clarifies what Ivor had such trouble understanding:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...96#post2329596

Quote:

Hal,
It appears that many of the people who responded here do not really understand what you were referring to when you spoke of honor in the letter.

For those who questioned the use of that word, if it helps, try substituting the word "integrity". If you lack integrity, those whom you are entrusted to lead will have no faith in your ability to do so. That is a major reason why this is one of the most grave accusations (other than accusing of actual crimes) you can make against a senior officer.

This is what I've been trying to put my finger on; "honour" is too open to interpretation, but I think "integrity" is exactly what the original thread (and letter) was intended to be about. Integrity is also completely irrelevant to the issue of launching an ICBM, or otherwise trying to kill other people. That can (IMO) also be justified, but I'm hoping Ivor can see that he was barking up the wrong tree, whether or not you agree with a need for a military, or whether their war-fighting activities can be described as "honourable".

In other words, whether or not Hal and his men could be seen as "honourable" for launching that missile (not that they ever did of course,) they would still have the integrity that AK-Dave describes, as it's part of the working structure of the military. You might see this as artificial and a byproduct of indoctrination, but it doesn't make it any less real or valuable, both within the miitary, and in civilian life afterwards. The idea being that people know they can trust you, that you will be as good as your word, and that you will conduct yourself within accepted legal and ethical parameters. Hal Bidlack obviously feels that Montel is not doing the latter, and thinks that calling him on his militarily-developed sense of integrity might help the cause of RSLancastr et al in "stopping" Sylvia Browne. And I repeat, this sense of integrity is, like any other aspect of "honour" is not necessarily any greater than that of a given civilian, just shared between such men and women to a more consistent degree. It's worth noting that a British military man would probably baulk at the overt discussion of "honour" as a concept, but would readily agree that "integrity" is very important to him.

Feel free to discuss around the topics we've explored; I'm just trying to resolve the question and criticism found in the original thread.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

History isn't always writen by the winners. Thucydides was an Athenian after all. And no, the Hiroshima bomb was not enough because the Japanese high command was still planning on defending the homeland until the last drop of Japanese blood. The U.S. high command had learned the lessons of Iwo Jimi and Okinawa and wasn't prepared for some of the carnage that would be visited on Japan if an invasion had to be ordered. Many calculations say that there would have been a million U.S. casualties and over 10 million Japanese.

I would have hated to have been Paul Tibbits on Aug. 7th, 1945, about to kill 150,000 people, but I'd hate even worse to have been Harry Truman in early 1946 setting the wheels in motion for 11-20 million people to die.

I certainly agree with your sentiment here, US.

As for being Col. Tibbets, and the rest of the crew of the Enola Gay for that matter, I see no problem with it whatsoever. Context is always very important. The crew knew that they were about to drop a very special bomb on a target. They knew their mission was ultra secret and vital to the strategic goals of the US and the Allied Forces.

They weren't killing 150,000 people; they were doing their duty and carrying out their vital mission. Their mission was handed down by the President himself. Its purpose was to bring a swift end to the terrible war in the Pacific, not to aimlessly kill and maim countless innocent civilians. The latter description is how it is framed by many modern day apologists, but that is so misguided.

It's the same with Ivor's ridiculous premise that professional soldiers and conscripts too do horrible things and that the very notion of being a warrior is somehow dishonorable. The simple fact and reality is that warfare is as old as civiliation itself, and it's silly to pretend that we can outlaw it (as the League of Nations tried to, and as its just-as-ill- conceived-successor the United Nations has tried to as well) or "rise above" it. Sorry, but we're human beings, and one of the things human beings do is fight.

Accept it. Don't blame soldiers for warfare. Study some political science. Warfare is diplomacy by other means. It sometimes breaks out when politicians have failed to use diplomacy, or been unsuccessful in its use, to accomplish their political goals.

AS

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Good post Conspi.

Ivor, have you ever served in the military? And if not, why pose such a stupid question as you have?

I have not served in the military. Why is it a stupid question because I have not served in the military?

Quote:

I would like to know what honour you're talking about as a civilian?

My original question was with regards to a specific act. Each act you perform that affects other people can be judged to be honourable or dishonourable. Most people seem to have a sense that their honour is like a personal score, with honourable acts adding to and dishonourable acts subtracting from it. But how do we judge which acts are honourable and which dishonourable? My view is that it’s closely linked with our moral judgement about the act.

If there are no universal moral principles, then a particular organisation or person could define any act to be moral and honourable because they define it as such. This idea does not seem to fit well with reality because most people, even if they can’t articulate it, have a sense of whether an act is right or wrong.

So if you agree that there are some universal moral principles that we expect all people in our society to adhere to (Google Golden Rule if you need a place to start) and that an act should only possibly be considered honourable if it does not violate these principles, then you will hopefully start to understand my argument.

Quote:

Most civilians would stab their next man in the back if it benefited them.

Have you got a study to show this? Or is this your own personal view on the rest of humanity who haven’t signed up? Remind me not to stand next to you

Quote:

Go watch Band of Brothers, maybe you'll learn a tad bit about the honor bestowed upon the military man.

Does Rambo count too? How about Commando or Preditor? Any more works of FICTION I should check out?

Only men? Or can a Woman have honour too?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I have not served in the military. Why is it a stupid question because I have not served in the military?

Because you're making assumptions about something you have never experienced. I think I can speak for most military people here....the brotherhood and friendships they form while in service, far outweigh those friendships they form in the civilian life.

Of course you have never experienced such a thing, so in essence you wouldn't know, which is probably why you make the assumption that military honor, and civilian honor are the same.

Quote:

My original question was with regards to a specific act. Each act you perform that affects other people can be judged to be honourable or dishonourable. Most people seem to have a sense that their honour is like a personal score, with honourable acts adding to and dishonourable acts subtracting from it. But how do we judge which acts are honourable and which dishonourable? My view is that it’s closely linked with our moral judgement about the act.

And do these acts in the civilian world include making decisions about your life? Say for example you could give up your life, knowing that the 4 men behind you would make it. Would you do it?

To the civilian such a theory sounds dumb, and most likely frightening, but to the military man, he deals with it almost everyday. Assuming you're actually in a combat role.

Quote:

If there are no universal moral principles, then a particular organisation or person could define any act to be moral and honourable because they define it as such. This idea does not seem to fit well with reality because most people, even if they can’t articulate it, have a sense of whether an act is right or wrong.

Well there is part of your problem. In the civilian world, the subject of right and wrong is equal to a wide amount of answers. What I think is right, will not necessarily be what you think is right as well. But we're civilians.

In the military, the idea of right and wrong is the same for everyone.

Quote:

So if you agree that there are some universal moral principles that we expect all people in our society to adhere to (Google Golden Rule if you need a place to start) and that an act should only possibly be considered honourable if it does not violate these principles, then you will hopefully start to understand my argument.

Sorry, there is no such thing as universal moral principles.

By saying universal, you include all of mankind. Does all of mankind know the golden rule? Do they abide by it, find it morally honorable to do so?

Quote:

Have you got a study to show this? Or is this your own personal view on the rest of humanity who haven’t signed up? Remind me not to stand next to you

Call it a hunch.

Quote:

Does Rambo count too? How about Commando or Preditor? Any more works of FICTION I should check out?

Obviously you have never seen Band of Brothers. My first thought about your whole argument was correct then. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Only men? Or can a Woman have honour too?

Sure, I never said they couldn't.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ConspiRaider

Agree with your premise, Azure, that it is difficult to draw parallels between military honor and civilian honor. The major problem is determining a common reference point between military life and civilian life. They are so radically different.

Exactly.

Quote:

I'm not even sure what civilian honor is. Rather amorphous, I should think. Very individualized, possibly showing itself in fits and starts. If at all. And self-defining, with the definition changing even within the scope of the individual evaluating it. Based on time, place, circumstance and so forth. It's exceedingly tough to get a handle on civilian "honor".

Well since the civilian world is based strictly on advancing yourself, I would assume civilian honor is very individual based. Unlike the military, where everything you do, well most everything is based on those people around you.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

I certainly agree with your sentiment here, US.

As for being Col. Tibbets, and the rest of the crew of the Enola Gay for that matter, I see no problem with it whatsoever. Context is always very important. The crew knew that they were about to drop a very special bomb on a target. They knew their mission was ultra secret and vital to the strategic goals of the US and the Allied Forces.

They weren't killing 150,000 people; they were doing their duty and carrying out their vital mission. Their mission was handed down by the President himself. Its purpose was to bring a swift end to the terrible war in the Pacific, not to aimlessly kill and maim countless innocent civilians. The latter description is how it is framed by many modern day apologists, but that is so misguided.

But they did kill 150,000 innocent people. They knew at the time they were going to kill 1000’s of innocent people. Who told them does not make any difference.

How can anyone know what would have happened if only one A-bomb was dropped? Do they have access to a parallel universe where events unfolded that way? Or is it just a piece of biased guesswork by war and/or political historians?

Quote:

It's the same with Ivor's ridiculous premise that professional soldiers and conscripts too do horrible things and that the very notion of being a warrior is somehow dishonorable. The simple fact and reality is that warfare is as old as civiliation itself, and it's silly to pretend that we can outlaw it (as the League of Nations tried to, and as its just-as-ill- conceived-successor the United Nations has tried to as well) or "rise above" it. Sorry, but we're human beings, and one of the things human beings do is fight.

Taking someone’s life against their will is a violation of the Golden Rule and so cannot be considered moral and by my definition, honourable. That is unless you want to say the Golden Rule only applies sometimes or to other people.

However, lots of acts a member of the military could perform, even in the heat of war and on the battlefield, would be considered honourable by my definition.

I also think you’re assuming I believe some acts are impossible to make up for. I don’t.

Quote:

Accept it. Don't blame soldiers for warfare. Study some political science. Warfare is diplomacy by other means. It sometimes breaks out when politicians have failed to use diplomacy, or been unsuccessful in its use, to accomplish their political goals.

AS

I try not to blame anyone for anything in the long term, since I am a Determinist. I shall study what interests me.

[Azure]

Ivor, read Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield.

Your ignorance towards the subject isn't even amusing anymore.

Actually, since you probably won't read it....I'll post an excerpt...

Quote:

Mankind is weak, greedy, craven, lustful, prey to every species of vice and depravity. He will lie, steal, cheat, murder, melt down the very statues of the gods and coin their gold as money for whores. This is man. This is nature, as all the poets attest. Fortunately God in his mercy has provided a counter-poise to our species' innate depravity. That gift, my friend is war. War, not peace, produces virtue. War, not peace, purges vice. War, and preparation for war, call forth all that is noble and honorable in men. It unites him with his brothers and binds them in selfless love, eradicating in the crucible of necessity all which is base and ignoble. There in the holy mill of murder the meanest of men may seek and find that part of himself, concealed beneath the corrupt, which shines forth brilliant and virtuous, worthy of honor before the gods. Do not despise war, my friend, nor delude yourself that mercy and compassion are virtues superior to andreia, to manly valor - Gates of Fire.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

But they did kill 150,000 innocent people. They knew at the time they were going to kill 1000’s of innocent people. Who told them does not make any difference.

The point was that they understood the gravity of their mission. They weren't pawns.

Quote:

How can anyone know what would have happened if only one A-bomb was dropped? Do they have access to a parallel universe where events unfolded that way? Or is it just a piece of biased guesswork by war and/or political historians?

You're being silly. Obviously no one can possibly know what would have happened if we had never used either of the atomic bombs. It doesn't really matter what revisionist historians have to say about the question.

What does matter is that at the time, based on the information available to the President and his advisors, the consensus among the top military leaders was that Japan would not give up the war in the Pacific, and that an invasion of the main islands of Japan was the next necessary step strategically towards putting an end to the war, which is what the Allies desperately wanted. Nearly everyone agreed that if an invasion were to occur, then it would cost millions of lives. Millions of Japanese would likely die, and possibly millions of Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen would as well. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the last man, woman, and child, with broomsticks if necessary.

The only alternative was to convince the Japanese that they should no longer put up a fight. The only way to do that, the thinking went, was to put on such an awesome display of death and destruction that the Japanese populace and the emperor would have only two choices -- surrender, or face annihilation. The fact is Japan didn't surrender after the dropping of the first bomb. The two bombs together, however, put enough pressure on the Japanese to give up.

It took an enormous amount of courage and conviction for President Truman to make the decision to drop the bombs. It was a calculated risk, and it worked.

You are free to ignore history and make up your own if you like. It won't change a thing.

Quote:

Taking someone’s life against their will is a violation of the Golden Rule and so cannot be considered moral and by my definition, honourable. That is unless you want to say the Golden Rule only applies sometimes or to other people.

The Golden Rule sounds great. Unfortunately, it is incomplete. It tells us nothing about how to defend ourselves when attacked by others, for instance. Surely you understand that killing under certain circumstances is justified, morally and legally. If you disagree, then there really is nothing further to discuss here.

Quote:

However, lots of acts a member of the military could perform, even in the heat of war and on the battlefield, would be considered honourable by my definition.

How charitable of you, the arbiter of honor on the battlefield.

Quote:

I also think you’re assuming I believe some acts are impossible to make up for. I don’t.

I'm assuming only that you have your head up your ass. You appear to have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

I try not to blame anyone for anything in the long term, since I am a Determinist. I shall study what interests me.

Study what you like, but remain willfully ignorant at your peril. Post about things of which you know little, and you risk making an ass of yourself.

AS

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

But they did kill 150,000 innocent people. They knew at the time they were going to kill 1000’s of innocent people. Who told them does not make any difference.

But the circumstances DO make a difference; and if they can in legal terms, why do you resist that they should in historical terms, as well? This is the essence of ethics. WHY something is done is as important as WHAT is done, and as important as the OUTCOME. All three must be evaluated. And that absolute certainty of what the results of NOT doing it should be required is no more reasonable than it is in our legal system, in which absolute certainty is not required to deprive a person of life or liberty. If it's good enough for law, how come it's not good enough for ethics? I say it IS.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

How can anyone know what would have happened if only one A-bomb was dropped? Do they have access to a parallel universe where events unfolded that way? Or is it just a piece of biased guesswork by war and/or political historians?

Well, what is the level of certainty? For example, what is YOUR level of certainty that the war would have ended without far more casualties than were created by dropping both bombs, if they had not been dropped? And if you cannot state virtual certainty, then why is this even worth discussing? If it's even 50/50, then the aggressor bears the responsibility; and the aggressor in WWII was not the US. Not even deliberate suppression of certain knowledge that the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to occur before the event is sufficient to remove the label of aggressor from the perpetrator of the attack; whether there was perfidy or not is immaterial. And the Rape of Nanking, and the Bataan Death March, remove any claim upon mercy that might otherwise be present; and those are merely the best known of a very long, dark list.

What you are doing is obfuscating the difference between lack of absolute certainty, which is an impossible standard to meet in the real world, and presence of reasonable doubt. They are not the same. And no amount of rationalization can make them so.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Taking someone’s life against their will is a violation of the Golden Rule and so cannot be considered moral and by my definition, honourable. That is unless you want to say the Golden Rule only applies sometimes or to other people.

This is incorrect. You are asserting absolute morality when the crux of your argument is relative. In fact, the Golden Rule does not require one to stand by in the presence of evil acts against others, not to even mention an attack against oneself. One is permitted to respond, in the defense of others or oneself. And that that response violates the Golden Rule is held unimportant; for to deny others one's defense against evil is a greater evil than to prevent, at whatever cost, the perpetrator. By hir aggression, the perpetrator removes hirself from consideration in this regard.

Now, are there limits? Of course there are. One does not kill a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and has not used violence. In general, police who do so are dismissed or even prosecuted, where it can be proven. So we come to the idea of the use of reasonable force. But if a suspect is known or reasonably believed to have used deadly force, and possess the means and will to do so again, then sterner measures are justified for the protection of the innocent.

Who can say what the suspect might have done later? No one can. But that is not necessary to justify the use of force; perhaps not deadly force, but then again the US didn't go on a mass nuclear bombing campaign of Japan, and in fact had failed to use indiscriminate bombing prior to that in other than a few cases. Was the use of force justified? Of course it was. Was the use of any available means to end the war justified? Well, what do you mean by "any available means?" Many means were available that the US did not use. Chemical weapons were available but not used. Indiscriminate firebombing of every major metropolitan area in mainland Japan was within the means available to the US. It was not used. So restraint was shown. Indiscriminate use was avoided. So where should the line be drawn? Good question; but absolute certainty is not necessary and to maintain so is to ignore reality. Was the force reasonable? Opinions vary. In the presence of provocation and threat from one party, and the use of force to prevent further violence from the other, the preponderance of reasonable doubt must go to the defender; that would be the US, not Japan.

You made a good post; you are avoiding inflammatory language. We disagree, but I do not despise you. I am interested in your opinion; we appear to share some ideas and some ethics. I look forward to your response.

[PogoPedant]

Originally Posted by Azure quoting the Gates of Fire

Mankind is weak, greedy, craven, lustful, prey to every species of vice and depravity. He will lie, steal, cheat, murder, melt down the very statues of the gods and coin their gold as money for whores. This is man. This is nature, as all the poets attest. Fortunately God in his mercy has provided a counter-poise to our species' innate depravity. That gift, my friend is war. War, not peace, produces virtue. War, not peace, purges vice. War, and preparation for war, call forth all that is noble and honorable in men. It unites him with his brothers and binds them in selfless love, eradicating in the crucible of necessity all which is base and ignoble. There in the holy mill of murder the meanest of men may seek and find that part of himself, concealed beneath the corrupt, which shines forth brilliant and virtuous, worthy of honor before the gods. Do not despise war, my friend, nor delude yourself that mercy and compassion are virtues superior to andreia, to manly valor - Gates of Fire.

That right there is first rate apologia for war. Imagine some hypothetical man strapping himself in a suicide belt and blowing up a bus full of israeli school children. That man is a warrior sacrificing himself in a war, in order to help his brothers attain a better life. Can you tell me, with a straight face, that the war purged this man of vice? That the terrorists that razed the World Trade Center shone brilliant and virtously? They did, after all, sacrifice themselves for their brothers.

(The paragraph above should be seen as reductio ad absurdum. Clearly, my examples represent filth; people hardly worth calling human. However, they fight what they percieve as a war, and they use whatever means they can to win. Therefore, in my opinion, virtue cannot lie in war itself, but must be found someplace else. Furthermore, considering the number of people involved in charities world-wide, including initiatives that travel to war-torn areas to provide medical aid to civilians, I feel that depravity is probably not a necessary trait in humans. But then, I'm not a sad, misanthropic git either.)

[Azure]

Whoa....realize that the entry was written abput a time where the two opposing sides stood 200 feet apart, and proceeded to fight against each other. A time where the enemy actually fought by the rules of war.

[PogoPedant]

All right, so war was a blessing from above for those hundred or so years when Europeans fought Europeans in brightly coloured uniforms? Now the point of the book is lost on me...

I'm sorry if I came off a bit aggressive, but I feel like there are some people on these boards that tend to romanticize war. I take a dim view to that, as war tends to have consequences far beyond the actual fighting parties.

[AmateurScientist]

Oh, you're right. There's nothing honorable about self-sacrifice. It's not honorable at all to give up willingly your own freedoms, and possibly your limbs or your life, to help preserve the freedoms of everyone else. How silly that I used to think that!

I have little patience for idealists or peaceniks.

AS

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

Oh, you're right. There's nothing honorable about self-sacrifice. It's not honorable at all to give up willingly your own freedoms, and possibly your limbs or your life, to help preserve the freedoms of everyone else. How silly that I used to think that!

I have little patience for idealists or peaceniks.

AS

Hmmm. Define these terms. I would consider myself an idealist; I believe that if we do not consider the best we can achieve, that we will never improve.

Yet, I don't disagree with your assertion that self-sacrifice is honorable; more to the point, I don't disagree that it is necessary in today's world. I do, however, disagree that it is necessary in Iraq. Afghanistan? No problem. People blow up buildings in New York, kill US civilians, get after 'em. But what did Iraq have to do with that? Nothing, becomes the ever-more-certain answer, which has already risen well past a preponderance of the evidence to better than a 90% certainty; and it was already at the level of the preponderance of the evidence, or 50% certain they had nothing to do with it, before we ever attacked.

Those people dying over there are my countrymen and -women. Why are they there? For what are they dying? Why is my money being spent there? Simple questions, and ones that the majority of the citizens of my country are asking. Questions that have no reasonable answer, as far as any of us can tell. Questions that were clear after last November. Questions my employees, the US administration, including my President, are ignoring, for ideological reasons. To deny that they are acting not only against the will, but against the interests, of the majority of US citizens flies in the face of fact.

Bring them home. Now. No more chances. No more lies. It's over. The administration screwed up, and did so against all the best advice that told them they were screwing up before they started. Admit it and move on. Accept responsibility.

Fat chance.

[PogoPedant]

Hold your sarcasm, AmateurScientist, I didn't say that self-sacrifice lacked honor! My points were that warfare in itself is not inherently honorable, and that fighting in a war does not automatically convey honor to the individual.

However, I am no peacenik, and I do admit that war is sometimes unavoidable. As an example, France should have fought Germany for the Rhineland in 1938 (or '39 or whenever), and such a stand might have prevented the greater war that followed.


Upon reflection, I realize that you may have been replying to Schneibster and not me. Feel free to ignore my post ...

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Hmmm. Define these terms. I would consider myself an idealist; I believe that if we do not consider the best we can achieve, that we will never improve.

Perhaps "idealists" is a vague usage here. I mean persons who approach problems and discussions constantly through the prism of what should be, rather than what is (usually younger adults who see the world through rose-colored glasses and haven't sufficient life experience to disabuse them of employing that approach). They tend to place an inordinate emphasis on how they wish things were.

Sure, in a perfect world there would be no war and no violence. We don't live in a perfect world. Deal.

Quote:

Yet, I don't disagree with your assertion that self-sacrifice is honorable; more to the point, I don't disagree that it is necessary in today's world. I do, however, disagree that it is necessary in Iraq.

I didn't say a word about Iraq, and I certainly wasn't alluding to it. My remarks are about peaceniks in general -- those who believe that war is never justified, and that all warfare is wrong. In my opinion, they live in a dreamworld of fantasy.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by PogoPedant

Hold your sarcasm, AmateurScientist, I didn't say that self-sacrifice lacked honor! My points were that warfare in itself is not inherently honorable, and that fighting in a war does not automatically convey honor to the individual.

However, I am no peacenik, and I do admit that war is sometimes unavoidable. As an example, France should have fought Germany for the Rhineland in 1938 (or '39 or whenever), and such a stand might have prevented the greater war that followed.


Upon reflection, I realize that you may have been replying to Schneibster and not me. Feel free to ignore my post ...

No sweat, man. Actually, I was addressing Ivor and anyone who agrees with his premises.

AS

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by PogoPedant

Upon reflection, I realize that you may have been replying to Schneibster and not me. Feel free to ignore my post ...

Then again, perhaps not.

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

Perhaps "idealists" is a vague usage here. I mean persons who approach problems and discussions constantly through the prism of what should be, rather than what is (usually younger adults who see the world through rose-colored glasses and haven't sufficient life experience to disabuse them of employing that approach). They tend to place an inordinate emphasis on how they wish things were.

Sure, in a perfect world there would be no war and no violence. We don't live in a perfect world. Deal.

Yep. Couldn't agree more. Comes a time you gotta do something; better to have someone who can get it done.

The young are not always naive; nor are the old always wise.

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

I didn't say a word about Iraq, and I certainly wasn't alluding to it. My remarks are about peaceniks in general -- those who believe that war is never justified, and that all warfare is wrong. In my opinion, they live in a dreamworld of fantasy.

Then we do not disagree, at least on the topics you state.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PogoPedant

All right, so war was a blessing from above for those hundred or so years when Europeans fought Europeans in brightly coloured uniforms? Now the point of the book is lost on me...

I'm sorry if I came off a bit aggressive, but I feel like there are some people on these boards that tend to romanticize war. I take a dim view to that, as war tends to have consequences far beyond the actual fighting parties.

Perhaps you should read the book before making those assertions.

Sparta is not European.

[PogoPedant]

You're probably right, Azure, and another title is added to my 'to-read' list.

(although Sparta really is European )

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

But the circumstances DO make a difference; and if they can in legal terms, why do you resist that they should in historical terms, as well? This is the essence of ethics. WHY something is done is as important as WHAT is done, and as important as the OUTCOME. All three must be evaluated. And that absolute certainty of what the results of NOT doing it should be required is no more reasonable than it is in our legal system, in which absolute certainty is not required to deprive a person of life or liberty. If it's good enough for law, how come it's not good enough for ethics? I say it IS.

So can there be valid moral justifications for any action? Do you think, for example, there could be an acceptable moral justification for rape?

Why do a large proportion of people think murder, when done on a relatively small scale is an offence punishable by a more severe sentence than that of rape, but is morally justifiable when done on a really large scale by a member of a group you identify with?

Quote:

Well, what is the level of certainty? For example, what is YOUR level of certainty that the war would have ended without far more casualties than were created by dropping both bombs, if they had not been dropped? And if you cannot state virtual certainty, then why is this even worth discussing? If it's even 50/50, then the aggressor bears the responsibility; and the aggressor in WWII was not the US. Not even deliberate suppression of certain knowledge that the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to occur before the event is sufficient to remove the label of aggressor from the perpetrator of the attack; whether there was perfidy or not is immaterial. And the Rape of Nanking, and the Bataan Death March, remove any claim upon mercy that might otherwise be present; and those are merely the best known of a very long, dark list.

What you are doing is obfuscating the difference between lack of absolute certainty, which is an impossible standard to meet in the real world, and presence of reasonable doubt. They are not the same. And no amount of rationalization can make them so.

I can understand, based on what I have read about human psychology, why terrible acts are performed on the battlefield. I have 100% certainty, that given the right motivation, I could be manipulated into performing some or all of the terrible acts that people have performed. What I hope I would not do is then argue that what I did was morally justifiable. I could only state the reasons why I did what I did and how I felt about it at the time and now.

I think what the people criticising me here are having trouble with is the idea of absolute moral principles. I suspect that deep down in their psyche they do have some belief of the basic ones I’ve mentioned, but as a method of coping with reality equate the reasons for an action with a moral justification of it.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes, or is everything relative?

Quote:

This is incorrect. You are asserting absolute morality when the crux of your argument is relative. In fact, the Golden Rule does not require one to stand by in the presence of evil acts against others, not to even mention an attack against oneself. One is permitted to respond, in the defense of others or oneself. And that that response violates the Golden Rule is held unimportant; for to deny others one's defense against evil is a greater evil than to prevent, at whatever cost, the perpetrator. By hir aggression, the perpetrator removes hirself from consideration in this regard.

That’s a good argument. It highlights one of the Golden Rules weaknesses, which is that it can sometimes be misapplied to a situation to support any or no action. What we then have to do is draw on other rules to choose a course of action. If you believe all morals are relative then it’s seems a valid argument to me.

In ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins he writes about some hypothetical moral dilemmas which boil down to saving the lives of 5 people by your actions killing 1 person or vice versa. The context of the situations is varied and in studies this varying of the context has been shown to cause people to change their decision.

I found it an interesting thought experiment to keep adjusting the context myself and see if my decisions changed. They did, of course. My conclusion was that there can be situations that could possibly occur in the real world that make any action morally unjustifiable against moral absolutes. But that only leaves you relative morality, which can be used to justify any act. So my solution to the problem is to think moral absolutes probably do exist conceptually but it may be only possible to approach them asymptotically with relative morality in the real world.

Quote:

Now, are there limits? Of course there are. One does not kill a fleeing suspect that is unarmed and has not used violence. In general, police who do so are dismissed or even prosecuted, where it can be proven. So we come to the idea of the use of reasonable force. But if a suspect is known or reasonably believed to have used deadly force, and possess the means and will to do so again, then sterner measures are justified for the protection of the innocent.

Do you think it would be possible to devise a means of subduing or disarming an individual who is threatening others without killing him?

We can put men on the moon but the best technology we can develop to stop a dangerous individual is to fire a lump of metal at him at high speed?

Quote:

Who can say what the suspect might have done later? No one can. But that is not necessary to justify the use of force; perhaps not deadly force, but then again the US didn't go on a mass nuclear bombing campaign of Japan, and in fact had failed to use indiscriminate bombing prior to that in other than a few cases. Was the use of force justified? Of course it was. Was the use of any available means to end the war justified? Well, what do you mean by "any available means?" Many means were available that the US did not use. Chemical weapons were available but not used. Indiscriminate firebombing of every major metropolitan area in mainland Japan was within the means available to the US. It was not used. So restraint was shown. Indiscriminate use was avoided. So where should the line be drawn? Good question; but absolute certainty is not necessary and to maintain so is to ignore reality. Was the force reasonable? Opinions vary. In the presence of provocation and threat from one party, and the use of force to prevent further violence from the other, the preponderance of reasonable doubt must go to the defender; that would be the US, not Japan.

Again, I would argue the use of force was understandable. The argument you have provided is one based on a relative morality. I’m sure there are even worse acts the allied forces could have used against Japan than the ones you’ve described.

Arguing I didn’t perform the worst act I could have performed seems a valid but weak moral argument for a particular course of action I may have chosen.

Quote:

You made a good post; you are avoiding inflammatory language. We disagree, but I do not despise you. I am interested in your opinion; we appear to share some ideas and some ethics. I look forward to your response.

And I yours.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

So can there be valid moral justifications for any action? Do you think, for example, there could be an acceptable moral justification for rape?

Leaving aside for the moment your notions about absolute morality, your example of rape sounds promising on the surface for such an argument. It isn't in reality, however. "Rape" is one of those concepts that touches us on a visceral level and sounds so horrible and indefensible. I'm certainly not going to claim that rape itself is defensible, but the accusation of rape certainly is in many cases.

The problem is that whether any given act constitutes rape is very dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. In the real world, examining all those facts and circumstances to determine if a given act is indeed rape or not is very often difficult, and reasonable persons can and do disagree. The facts tend to muddy the issues in such situations.

We like to conjure up extreme factual hypotheticals in our heads, but the reality is that extreme factual situations are indeed on the extremes. Most real world cases involving allegations of forcible rape (as opposed to "statutory rape" which is essentially a strict liability crime) are clouded with inconvenient facts for the prosecution. Some examples are that the two parties knew each other, there was drinking involved, and there is a real issue as to whether there was consent given.

Quote:

Why do a large proportion of people think murder, when done on a relatively small scale is an offence punishable by a more severe sentence than that of rape, but is morally justifiable when done on a really large scale by a member of a group you identify with?

Your premise is invalid and untrue. Nearly all societies, present and historical, recognize that murder is more than simply killing another human being. It requires a mens rea, a certain level and kind of intent. For instance, purely accidental killings are not only not murder, but might not be criminal at all, depending on the circumstances. Societies also recognize that certain justifications, such as self-defense or defense of another, excuse actions that would otherwise constitute the crime of murder.

One such legal and moral justification is killing an enemy combatant during an armed conflict we traditionally call "war." Hardly anyone who seriously examines the issues involved would call all such killings "murder." In previous wars, attacking enemy civilian populations in order to weaken the enemy's ability to wage war (such as laying siege to a city which supplies arms to the army) was seen as legally and morally justified. I would prefer to leave that kind of tactic out of the discussion, as it seems less justifiable to us today, but was a valid tactic for thousands of years.

Your attempt to classify all killings in war as "murder" is little more than a redefinition of "murder" to suit your own argument. We don't get to do that in debates with well-defined terms. Shooting an enemy who is trying to shoot you in the heat of a battle is simply not murder.

Quote:

I can understand, based on what I have read about human psychology, why terrible acts are performed on the battlefield. I have 100% certainty, that given the right motivation, I could be manipulated into performing some or all of the terrible acts that people have performed. What I hope I would not do is then argue that what I did was morally justifiable. I could only state the reasons why I did what I did and how I felt about it at the time and now.

You're right to note that humans do have a strong aversion to admitting to themselves and others that they might have committed a wrong. We have a strong tendency to attempt to rationalize and justify our behavior, even when it is wrong.

Quote:

I think what the people criticising me here are having trouble with is the idea of absolute moral principles.

You bet I do. There are no moral abolutes in my worldview. Everything is dependent upon the surrounding facts and circumstances. The world of morals and ethics is rarely black and white in practice. The sooner you accept that it is gray, the easier it is to navigate it.

Quote:

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes, or is everything relative?

Leaving out extreme hypotheticals, I firmly reject absolutes. I suspect very much that what you mean by "everything relative" is very different from what I mean. I suspect you mean that we each get to pick our own morals and ethics to suit our own selfish purposes, and we each get to reject the ones that don't suit us. That's not what it means to me, however. To me, it means you have to examine the surrounding facts and circumstances to make such a determination. In practice, branding something "X" or "Y" morally or legally is often difficult.

Quote:

In ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins he writes about some hypothetical moral dilemmas which boil down to saving the lives of 5 people by your actions killing 1 person or vice versa. The context of the situations is varied and in studies this varying of the context has been shown to cause people to change their decision.

I found it an interesting thought experiment to keep adjusting the context myself and see if my decisions changed. They did, of course. My conclusion was that there can be situations that could possibly occur in the real world that make any action morally unjustifiable against moral absolutes. But that only leaves you relative morality, which can be used to justify any act. So my solution to the problem is to think moral absolutes probably do exist conceptually but it may be only possible to approach them asymptotically with relative morality in the real world.

That's not what relative morals have to be. They don't necessarily change from one person to another. It means that they are guideposts, not absolute markers. Very often real world behavior falls outside the boundaries of clearly defined moral absolutes. That doesn't mean we cannot use moral principles to evaluate the behavior; it just means we have to be more flexible and creative in judging behavior, especially when it's the behavior of others. We don't have direct access to what they were thinking at the time, which is vital to assessing anyone's behavior from a moral or legal perspective. Intent matters.

ETA: Of course Dawkins' point in examining the killing 1 to save 5 hypotheticals (which he did not invent, BTW) is that there is no such thing as absolute morals. We don't get morals from God. We get them from our own heads. Collectively, our heads have agreed by convention that certain acts or omissions are sufficiently "good," and some are sufficiently "bad" that our society takes an official stance on them.

Quote:

Do you think it would be possible to devise a means of subduing or disarming an individual who is threatening others without killing him?

Yep. It's called "non-lethal" force. Police and even armies use it all the time.

Quote:

We can put men on the moon but the best technology we can develop to stop a dangerous individual is to fire a lump of metal at him at high speed?

Nope. You should watch some Discovery Channel sometime. There are some excellent one-hour long documentaries showcasing the latest in the use of non-lethal force.

Quote:

Again, I would argue the use of force was understandable. The argument you have provided is one based on a relative morality. I’m sure there are even worse acts the allied forces could have used against Japan than the ones you’ve described.

Arguing I didn’t perform the worst act I could have performed seems a valid but weak moral argument for a particular course of action I may have chosen.

That's a strawman argument, as I don't believe anyone here has asserted it.

AS

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

So can there be valid moral justifications for any action? Do you think, for example, there could be an acceptable moral justification for rape?

I have no idea. It's your hypothetical, tell me what you have in mind.

Fifty thousand children acquire a disease that can only be kept at bay by grinding up a kitten every week for each one of them, and feeding them the blood. If you think there isn't one that involves rape, I suggest you are naive.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Why do a large proportion of people think murder, when done on a relatively small scale is an offence punishable by a more severe sentence than that of rape, but is morally justifiable when done on a really large scale by a member of a group you identify with?

Murder is the deliberate causing of the death of another human being for personal gain, or for bats**t insane reasons. War is not murder.

It's crap like this that makes AS refer to you as an idealist.

Someone decides to come after you with a stick. You don't want to deal with any people with sticks today, so you decide to leave. They follow you. You try to negotiate. They hit you with the stick. You got two choices.

Now multiply by 50 or 100 million.

Don't bring up Iraq; YOUR premise is ALL war is like this. Mine is, it ain't. Iraq is the actions of someone who is either an idiot or so arrogant as to amount to being bats**t insane himself, I haven't made my mind up yet. It was a mistake, to say the least. But not all war is like that.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I can understand, based on what I have read about human psychology, why terrible acts are performed on the battlefield. I have 100% certainty, that given the right motivation, I could be manipulated into performing some or all of the terrible acts that people have performed. What I hope I would not do is then argue that what I did was morally justifiable. I could only state the reasons why I did what I did and how I felt about it at the time and now.

People on the battlefield kill one another. I don't know what "horrible acts" you have in mind; in general, anal rape is a little bit difficult when they're shooting at you. So is torture. You shoot, they shoot back, eventually either everybody leaves, or somebody surrenders. Some people die before that. It ain't fun, and for many of us, the people we know who died, or the people we killed, will remain with us in our minds for the rest of our lives. But if it had to be done, would you rather have someone do it who actually gives a s**t they just killed a living, breathing, valuable human like you and me, or someone who doesn't? Because that's what it comes down to. And if they give a s**t they're gonna hurt afterward.

And if you think that more than a tiny fraction of people will have any different experience than I have described, YOU are bats**t insane. Most US citizens, brought up in our society, have a great deal of trouble adjusting to the idea that they have to kill people. They simply are not prepared to do anything worse, and in general they will not. Occasional exceptions occur, and must be weeded out. Courts martial take care of such cases; that's what they're there for.

Afterward, the people who had to kill people can have psychological trouble. They did it for the rest of us. They deserve our congratulations and our support, whether we agree with the reasons for the war they fought or not.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I think what the people criticising me here are having trouble with is the idea of absolute moral principles. I suspect that deep down in their psyche they do have some belief of the basic ones I’ve mentioned, but as a method of coping with reality equate the reasons for an action with a moral justification of it.

Do you believe there are any moral absolutes, or is everything relative?

I don't believe in morals. Period. I think morals are the root of a great deal of evil in our world. Morals are for little kids who are not yet capable of understanding ethics and should be protected from situations of moral ambiguity. I consider people who think that morals can guide them through every situation naive. I believe that ethics are what an adult human should base their actions on. I advocate (and follow) descriptive ethics, specifically.

The idea is, one chooses values that one will assign to various elements of one's environment, and to various abstract ideas like "love," and "honor," and "peace," and so forth. One then has a clear guide to actions; simply choose the element or idea with the highest value. If one finds oneself in a situation where the correct action seems ambiguous or repugnant, one checks to be sure that one has not confused one's values before acting.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

That’s a good argument. It highlights one of the Golden Rules weaknesses, which is that it can sometimes be misapplied to a situation to support any or no action. What we then have to do is draw on other rules to choose a course of action. If you believe all morals are relative then it’s seems a valid argument to me.

I hate that whole "moral relativism" thing. It's bulls**t. MORALS are bulls**t. Adult humans use ethics. Anyone who can't is a child.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

In ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins he writes about some hypothetical moral dilemmas which boil down to saving the lives of 5 people by your actions killing 1 person or vice versa. The context of the situations is varied and in studies this varying of the context has been shown to cause people to change their decision.

I haven't read it yet; it's on "the list." I expect Dawkins could make quite a bit of hay with that particular wagonload of grass. I expect there are a lot of people who don't know morals from ethics whose evaluations of the various situations would change. I expect I'd choose the same way most every time, and the same way I'll state here: yes, in general, I would take the life of a single individual to save five others. Depending on the circumstances, I might feel a great deal of regret in doing it. There might exist circumstances under which I would not. In general, those circumstances would involve five people who were not worth saving, or one person whose death could/would cause the deaths of many others.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I found it an interesting thought experiment to keep adjusting the context myself and see if my decisions changed. They did, of course. My conclusion was that there can be situations that could possibly occur in the real world that make any action morally unjustifiable against moral absolutes. But that only leaves you relative morality, which can be used to justify any act. So my solution to the problem is to think moral absolutes probably do exist conceptually but it may be only possible to approach them asymptotically with relative morality in the real world.

I have moderated my style considerably; even gone back and changed some things I said above, because you said this. If you're still pissed off at this point, lose it. It's time to do some thinking.

I spoke above of values. But I did not speak of ethics, other than in passing. Those relative values? Those lead to ethics. To be technically correct, ethics are the actions dictated by those values. There are some situations that come up again and again; in a given society, where most people share the same values, they should in general wind up using the same ethics. These "shared" ethics are morals. Guides to action in specific, highly limited circumstances. That's why I despise them so: idiots try to use them in situations they were never intended for, and wind up doing ethically unjustifiable things.

Let's take abortion. Abortion is the taking of a potential human life. I don't know whether that's as bad as the taking of an actual human life; depending on the values you place on things, it might be, it might not. Personally, I don't place a great deal of value on an undifferentiated blastocyst, but others' opinions might differ on that; and no one's opinion really matters but the woman who is hosting that blastocyst. So what are the values she should consider? Well, there's whatever value she chooses to place on that blastocyst, and there's whatever value she has placed on aborting it. How about the rest of us?

If you are a citizen of my country, then my Constitution makes it clear: the value of liberty is higher than the value of life.

That's the end of the conversation. Her liberty is worth more than that child's life, and that's the way the founders of my country told us all it should be. And they make it extremely clear over and over again:

"The tree of liberty must be liberally watered from time to time with the blood of patriots... and of tyrants." That's Tom Jefferson. "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." That's Ben Franklin. "Give me liberty, or give me death." That's Pat Henry. These guys were stand-up guys. They knew what was what. And they had seen the price of subordinating liberty to ANYTHING. They wished for us, their descendants, whether of their loins or their minds, a clear understanding of this point, so that we could learn from their experience and not have to repeat it every generation.

Perhaps she can be convinced that the value of the abortion isn't as high as she thought, or that the value of the blastocyst is higher. And that's fine; you're welcome to try. And people do. But don't scream morals in her face; it's repugnant, and it's against my Constitution. Once she's made her decision, she should be permitted to follow through on it in peace; that's the value of her liberty.

In case you're considering it, I'll make it explicit: one of those abstract things I've put a very high value on is "liberty." I'm just a man, if someone threatened my life, I might give it up; but there's also a significant chance I'd say, "F*** you in the heart, jack, fire away." See, I believe those guys had it right. I believe they had thought it all the way through, and did their best to tell us the most important things they had figured out. And we should listen.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Do you think it would be possible to devise a means of subduing or disarming an individual who is threatening others without killing him?

We can put men on the moon but the best technology we can develop to stop a dangerous individual is to fire a lump of metal at him at high speed?

Don't go all absolute morals on me again. Think the situation over again; this time, instead of tin-and-lead cops-n-robbers, put human beings ON BOTH SIDES. Tell me what you would do.

I'll point something else out: tasers get issued, and the next thing you know, every use of a taser, justified or not, gets called "torture." Go poke around on some liberal boards and see if I'm not right. Now, tasers lend themselves somewhat to misuse; primarily because people don't think of them as deadly force. And I think we're going to see some pretty harsh laws, and some cops who get their dicks stuck in their zippers, over the next several years, as the whole thing gets worked out. Those guys who tased that kid in the library in the university down in LA are in real deep doo-doo. I suspect a lot of cops are watching that pretty close to see how it comes out, and if they aren't, they should be. It will establish some case law.

That's how it works, you see: a new thing hits the street, and the cops on the street make their judgment about how it goes, and eventually it comes in front of a judge and he makes his own, much more deliberate and thoroughly thought judgements. Those become precedent. If problems happen and there is public outcry, then the politicians get involved and make some laws.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Again, I would argue the use of force was understandable. The argument you have provided is one based on a relative morality. I’m sure there are even worse acts the allied forces could have used against Japan than the ones you’ve described.

Arguing I didn’t perform the worst act I could have performed seems a valid but weak moral argument for a particular course of action I may have chosen.

That's not the justification; it's the proof that my action was reasonable and measured, rather than just wildly striking out with whatever came to hand. I made every attempt to subdue him before I had to shoot him, your honor. And I tried to shoot him in the shoulder, instead of the center of the chest. Unfortunately, it nicked the subclavian artery, and I couldn't stop the bleeding in time to save his life.

The justification is, he was trying to kill me, and he had a really big knife.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

And I yours.

I'll see what you think of this.

[Schneibster]

AS's response brings it to my attention that I have left out an important part.

It's important, if you're going to live in a society, that you substantially share the values of that society. That way, the ethics you act, and the morals they imply, fit in with the people around you. Mine pretty much do.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PogoPedant

You're probably right, Azure, and another title is added to my 'to-read' list.

(although Sparta really is European )

The book is highly praised by any member of the military.

Plus, its based on a true story. Very good read.

And it helped me appreciate the sacrifice our military makes.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

When I was a kid, I expressed admiration for someone who had some illustrious ancestor - I forget who. My dad said, "Big deal; your ancestors were on Mount Sinai with Moses."

Benjamin Disraeli got there first:

Quote:

Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.

Also, another point:

Quote:

Where's the honor in being involved in the pressing of a button on an ICBM launch panel to kill 10,000's of people?

Well, the USA's willingess to do just this to Moscow and Leningrad was one of the only things which stopped the USSR from taking over western Europe for the greater glory of St. Karl and St. Vladimir. Preventing that eventuality was certainly honorable, and since it was for this reason that the ICBMs and the willingness to use them existed in the first place, this was honorable.