The Ethics of "Sending our boys off to die"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Why argue contractual obligations, enforcable the system of law built around them, when it suits you, when some of the basic premises behind the idea of contracts have been violated.

I am glad you are overjoyed with the thought that Iraqis now have porn and that their lives are happy and complete as a result, however, joining the military should not obligate one, not one, single American life to be lost so as to provide pornography to the rest of the world. Nor should one American life be lost so that the wealthy can become even wealthier, nor should one American life be lost so a politician can be re-elected. This renders the entire idea of common rule useless, and champions rule by an elite few. You say that people should become more informed, and I agree. Long do I pine away for the days of true Conservatives, all of whom would have seen the U.S. being interventionist for profit as also being anti democratic, because once truly informed, the American public would not merrily sacrifice its children to enrich the elite.

Perhaps we do truly get the government we deserve, if that is so, rejoice, for it too seems equally ignorant and selfish.

22

Forgive me if I’m wrong about this, I have never seen an American enlistment form, but I do believe that somewhere on there it states (and I’m paraphrasing here), “That no soldier will be placed in harms way unless National Security is threatened and is deemed necessary.”

Like I said, I could be wrong about this, but it is something that I have been led to believe.

23

Hmm, if this is indeed true, then you would be right night watch. But I was not aware of this. I would love to see firsthand this form so that I can read it for myself. It doesn’t seem that this is so, because what national security reason did we have for sending troops into somalia? But I am not an expert on this stuff, so if anyone has definate infromation about this, please do enlighten me and night watch.

24

To FenceRegulation, apparently legal or not means little to everyone else, because Bush is still president, and the Iraq war in my opinion was not the “tradgic failure and blunder” everyone made it out to seem at first. What is legal is only as good as how it is enforced. So if for illegaly going to war with iraq Bush got kicked out of office or was put into prison, then whats legal actually means something. But with a contract, if you sign it, you must realize you are submitting yourself to a good chance of punishment if you break it. Thats the only meaning in a legal contract. Like I said, legal or not means only as much as how well it is enforced, and apparently, Bush going to war being illegal is meaningless.

" however, joining the military should not obligate one, not one, single American life to be lost so as to provide pornography to the rest of the world. Nor should one American life be lost so that the wealthy can become even wealthier, nor should one American life be lost so a politician can be re-elected. This renders the entire idea of common rule useless, and champions rule by an elite few."

Thats a normative statement, and if you believe it, you should try and do something about it, if you care enough. But the positive statement is that joining the military DOES obligate american lives to do those things, if those things are deemed by the executive and legislative branches. And unless there is a draft or for some reason people are forced into being obligated to do those things, then the executive and legislative branches will never be held responsible for the deaths of American soldiers if they are acting within the legal framework, and this is logical and thus I believe will always be this way. And since its logical, I am happy with it, and those people that are not, and that are complaining are being irrational.

25

Right here you give Bush a free pass to act however he feels, and never to be accountable for his actions, as long as he does it legally. Throughout the entire discussion, you never hold Bush accountable for his decisions. If we do not hold him responsible for acting, then why bother critiquing him at all? Furthermore, the argument insists that the people at the bottom are the ones to blame, because they are the ones who decide to act.

If Bush can not be held responsible for the consequences of his decisions, then should we hold Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Osama bin Laden responsible for any of their atrocities? After all, bin Laden wasn’t the person who flew the plane. The fact that bin Laden organized the events, according to your line of reasoning, is irrelevant. The only individuals who matter are the ones who flew the plane, because they ultimately decide what to do.

Taken even further, Bush is not responsible for anything good or bad that happens in this country, because he isn’t the one to enforce the laws. That is the responsibilty of our police, judges, etc. These individuals are the ones who ultimately decide what to do with Bush’s laws. In fact, why have a president at all since he is not responsible for anything?

Yes, in legal terms, Bush and Congress could never be held legally responsible for the deaths of soldiers. As the title of this thread suggests however, this is about ethics. From an ethical point of view, Bush IS responsible for their lives. The soldiers offer their lives to the country. Ultimately, Bush will make the decisions that affects these lives and he will have to live with the consequences of these decisions. The responsibility of those deaths belongs partly to him.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Bush is completely responsible for everything that happens to these soldiers. The soldiers can think for themselves, and violent enemies also share the blame. However, Bush is not free from responsibility with regards to the troops’ lives.

26

Justice is the advantage of the stronger, I see. What a novel idea, I have never heard of it before.

And that is an is/ought fallacy, but I digress.

It doesn’t, according to you, if it isn’t or cannot be enforced.

But you had said

So it doesn’t matter if people are forced into the military via a draft and then forced to die, what is legal is what can be enforced.

It is many things, logical isn’t one of them. Maybe one of those fancy new logics I haven’t heard of, the one with the V 8 and dual air bags.

You are at a philosophy site, make me a logical proof. Most you can hope for is that it is logically valid. Whether it is true or not, well I would have to ask for more evidence beyond what you “believe”. That okay with you Thrasymachus?

27

I’m not sure if this has been addressed already because I really didn’t feel like reading the thread, especially after I seen the comment “Nowhere in the US consititution does it say the President cannot lie.”

The reason why it isn’t in there is because it’s a no-brainer. The president should never lie in office, and all presidents that have are peices of shit. With that said I want to talk about miltary recruiting tactics.

All branches of the miltary primarily recruit in poverty striken neighborhoods. That is not to say that is the only place they recruit, but easily where the majority of recruiting is done. They recruit here because these impoverished people are easy targets. They join the Army or Navy because they view it as their only way out. It offers them a chance at an education and some other perks, and that makes it very appealing when you think about the despairation of these people’s lives. Their backs are against the wall, and thus they aren’t making rational decisions.

You say it doesn’t matter who the President declares war on–it doesn’t matter whether a war is unjust or not. Well, that is absolutely ridiculous. When you join the miltary, it is based on the presumption that you will not be put in harms way unless it is NECESSARY. An unjust war is clearly not necessary.

America was never intended to be an empire, let alone even have a standing army. Read up on some American History before you spew your pro-bush bullshit on this forum.

28

All Presidents have lied, and all future presidents will lie. All humans lie. That’s just the way the world works. My regret over the invasion of Iraq isn’t that it was done so much as that it wasn’t done in a more effective manner.

Certainly the founding fathers feared having a standing army, but alas in the modern world I can’t fathom how a militia alone could serve as the sole military of a nation. Threats to a country can materialize in seconds, not months as in colonial times. At any rate, the founders also didn’t intend for there to be social security, income taxes or welfare, either. Good luck getting rid of those things. :wink:

When called up for duty, a soldier must obey. An army that doesn’t obey orders will be useless. Certainly if called upon to fullfill an illegal order, a soldier may/should disobey, but it wouldn’t work for soldiers to pick and chose which conflicts they participate in based on their whims of the moment. A soldiers job is to fight, and s/he will fight wherever and whenver they’re told to.

29

Hi Phaedrus,

Thanks, in part, to the Nueremberg Trials, it was drilled into me back in boot-camp that it was my duty to disobey an illegal order. I always thought that was a rather curious thing. Was I supposed to consult my lawyer if charged with an order of dubious legal merit? Was I supposed to ask the officer issuing the order whether or not it was legal? Right…

In fact, it almost never happens that soldiers refuse to obey their orders over legal or moral grounds. Niceties aside, they’re generally so scared, angry, or intimidated that they’d mow-down their own mother if so ordered. Think, for example, of Charlie Company back in Vietnam. Would you have shot into the ditch? I’d like to think that neither of us would, but statistics say otherwise.

Remember as well, that a soldier refusing an order during time of war is liable to be shot on the spot. Now, that’s something to gnaw on. Historically, whenever a group of soldiers have refused their orders the military establishment has reacted ruthlessly. For example, the word “decimate” comes to us from Latin. It refers to the ancient Roman practice of executing every tenth soldier that has taken part in a mutiny. The French used the same tactic to motivate their soldiers in the First World War. Of course, the Czar’s army knew that their own machine guns behind them were meant for them as much as the enemy.

And so it goes. Historically, soldiers have been far more apt to disobey out of fear than out of some deep moral aversion to their orders. I’m disappointed by that, but certainly not surprised.

I’ve also read, sadly, that the modern day child-soldiers of Africa are perhaps the most efficient of all killing machines. One might argue that their actions are amoral rather than immoral. They’re simply too young to have developed a complex moral character. Everything withers before them and their $6 assault weapons; their victims have learned that it’s no use appealing to their sense of compasion. Compassion? What’s that? For their robotic, remorselessness they might be better likened to a conflagation of army ants rather than an army of human beings.

The far greater danger to humanity is not that our soldiers might disobey their orders to kill, but as always, that they kill so seemlessly and effectively when so-ordered. Please bear in mind as well, the classic psychology experiment wherein the authority figure instructs an unwitting subject to administer electrical shocks to an obviously innocent person. The results cut across cutural, religious, and educational backgrounds; in nearly every case people generally do as they are ordered.

I’m wistful of that old bumper sticker: “What if they had a war and no one came?” Fat chance, that…

Best wishes,
Michael

30

Thank you for that insight Michael,

This is the sort of issue that I raise about training soldiers at too young of an age. The younger we are, the more impressionable we become. Michael’s comparison to the “children armies” in other nations is a prime example. They seem heartless, cold, and blood-thirsty. Why is that? Because, they were programmed to be this way. You could say that they are just doing their job, being a soldier in an army. But how far do we go? Do we sacrifice their own identity for our causes? Is this not a break in human rights, creating shells of human beings to be used as puppets? Is this truly what we stand for?

I say no. Children are not to be used as pawns of war and death. We humans do not biologically complete our maturity until we reach our twenties. This is why I say 18 is too young to enlist. We want to create soldiers, not killers… there is a difference between the two.

~J

31

In months before Sept. 11…I commented to myself how fucked up this country was and how badly we needed something to bring us together. I said to myself, “we need a war.” When I said that, I felt that it had to be such a war that would cause the splitting nation to unite and reflect a level of pride comparable to the days of WW2.

I found it interesting how things played out…and the country was actually united…for a while at least.

32

I meant while in office.

33

Hi Sagesound,

Unity in purpose is no great virtue in a democracy. A democracy is purposely messy. Whenever someone jumps up and incites people to zig, there ought to be voices calling for zag, or at a minimum, for non-zig.

I might point, on the other hand, to the German people under the Nazi’s. They were a virtual paragon of unity. A herd of sheep also moves with a single purpose. I’ve herded sheep a few times, and I remember marvelling at how there seemed to be only one brain at work in the herd.

But no matter how desireable our unity might be, would you think it’s worth the price of war? No matter how you answer now, I’ll wager that if your family had died in that war you’d very likely say no. So if it’s not worth the lives of your own family, why would it be worth the lives of other families? Everyone killed in a war is someone’s family.

When Bush first incited America to riot in Iraq, where were the dissenting voices? I marched several times along with thousands of others in protest, still, it was only a miniscule slice of the American population that took to the streets or made their opposition known in other ways. Our leaders took longer to debate a prescription drug bill than they did to debate the invasion of another country; an elective war in a time of peace. Why? I don’t pretend to know all the reasons, but I suspect that fear and anger had a good deal to do with it. People were still terrified and livid over 9/11. Bush and Company, ever the opportunists, channeled that fear masterfully. After two of Bush’s own high-level advisors defected they reported how he came into office actively looking for reasons to invade Iraq. Strange, but he never mentioned it in his 2000 presidential campaign?

The primary reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that they were about to attack us with their WMD. Cheny even warned that we couldn’t afford to wait until the mushroom clouds appeared in our cities, etc. Of course, we now know there were no WMD in Iraq. The Neocon revisionist’s are now saying it was all really about saving the Iraqi people from Saddam, about spreading democracy to the Mideast, about giving the Iraqi people a chance to vote… And once we’ve finished eating that swill from their spoon we’ll lick their hand as well. Now that Bush has made the American public his accomplice we’re very well not going to rise up and accuse him of murder; because we’d also be accusing ourselves.

You saw Bush right after last November’s election come forward with a smirk, saying that he wasn’t out-front in starting the war; that the election results proved that it was merely the will of the nation. And with that announcement any remaining question of culpability was quietly flushed down the shitter - diluted across this entire nation. Most Americans aren’t really bad people, so how could something America has done be really bad? I thought right away of Derek Parfit’s thousand torturers example (Beings and Persons).

Michael

34

Ok Soda, I am trying to make the point of willfull subordination, so heres an example for you. A commander has soldiers that have willfully submitted themselves to be led by him under his command (by joining the US military). If the commander, just from plain imcompetence sends them into a stupid situation and they all die, should the commander be held in any way responsible for their deaths? By that I mean, ofcourse the commander is going to lose his job, because part of his job is the effective use of his subordinates, and he obviously didnt use them effectivly, the question is, should he face any other punishment as a result of his soldiers’ deaths. The answer in my opinion is NO. Because if people are held directly responsible for the fate of willfull subordinates, then the people in command will have a big reason not to take ANY risks with those lives, and we all know war requires taking some big risks. With that kind of policy in place, Commanders would find some foxhole and sit there the whole war, because they dont want to be sent to jail if any of their soldiers die. So my point is, Bush is that commander. And to hold him in ANY way responsible for the fate of the willfull subordinates under his charge is not smart. He IS held responsible for the effective use of those subordinates, thats his job, and if he doesn’t use them effectivly, he will lose his job, or at least will not be re-ellected. But for him to face any other punishment as a result of the deaths of all the people under his command, it would seem like Bush should be in jail right now, and most other presidents should be in jail if any 1 died under their command.

Bush IS held acountable in terms of his job. If he does a bad job, there are consequences. Again, as I said before, this only applies to the
people under willfull subordination of Bush. If Bush purposly uses his army to murder a village of innocent iraqis, for no other reason than
his pleasure, than all the blame of those innocent deaths goes onto BUSH, not his subordinates, or at least most of the blame should go to
Bush. People that are not willfull subrodinates of Bush’s army and die as a result of Bush’s orders, like those innocent iraqis, Bush does
hold the responsibility of those deaths. The question then arises why were the orders given, was it a mistake like a pilot missing his
bombing target, or was it intentional, but that is a discussion for another day. The point is Bush should not be held accountable for the
deaths or injuries of willfull subordinates. Because if such a policy existed, it would greatly hinder any commanders decision making
capability. And a big problem arises when commanders place that responsibility upon themselves. They realize that a consequence of their
actions is the deaths of their subordinates, and that moral responsibility weighs heavily on them, thus making their decisions much harder
than they would be if they detached themselves from that moral responsibility, and just did their job. This is the theme of many books and
movies, of comanders crumbling under the pressure they themselves place there. If it was US policy to place that pressure there, we
would be setting ourselves up to fail in any military endeavor.

All the dictators you mentioned were held responsible for the people they killed outside of their willfull subordinates. Hitler should not be
held accountable for the deaths of Nazi soldiers that chose to join his army.

No, from an ethical point of view, Bush should not be held acountable. For this reason: Do you believe in mercy killings? I would think
there is nothing unethical about mercy killings. If some one willfully places their life in your hands, and you kill them, you should not be held
responsible, because they gave you that power. This is the same thing with Bush. US soldiers choose to place their lives in his hands, thus
just like with mercy killings, Bush should not be held responsible.

GateControl, do you disagree with what I said? Why do you think people speed, why do you think people smoke pot, why do you think
people drink under age? Because they can get away with it… It being legal means nothing to them, because it is hard to enforce and they
take advantage of that. This is how it will always work. I guess an inevitable consequence of this fact of life is that legality is an advantage
of the stronger, but there is absolutely no other way…

Um, joining the military pretty much obligates you to do those things, BECAUSE it is well enforced. My understanding of the US military
tells me that refusing to follow orders as per the contract most often yields very negative results. If you can get away from those
consequences, then the contract does mean nothing. But its hard to do, because the military is strict about those things. So my statement
stands…

You will find that if there is a draft instituted, it will become extremely hard to enforce, as was seen in the late stages of vietnam. I would
predict that it would become so hard to enforce, and it would be such a nightmare for Bush that he would stop it. And yes it is logical.
More than logical, its the only possible way. You think morals and laws and values and whatever will stand by themselves? You think that
just saying that murder is wrong will prevent murder? No, what is legal, what is moral, what is ethical, is only as good as how well it is
enforced. Otherwise it is all just words, and no action.

Heres your logical proof. I tell someone not to hit me. They do it anyways. If I dont hit them back and hard, they are liabe to keep hitting
me, and why wouldn’t they, what is their reason not to hit me. There is no such reason unless I make it. So I punch him in the face and
make it clear that hitting me has consequences. Thats a reason not to hit me, because I hit them back. Isn’t that the simplest thing you’ve
ever heard? Seems perfectly logical to me.

35

You forget that life is not a courtroom where right is right and wrong is wrong and the laws rule. Life is about love, feeling, understanding, etcetera. Long time back when a father wrote to a US President, when his only son was going to war, something like, “…God can forgive you but I will not,” I would have to take the side of that father. And even by your logic, if the would be soldier has responsibilities, then the administration does too, and that is to find a peaceful alternative to war, or what in heaven’s name is education and learning all about! Also, war is unjust because if the would be soldier makes a mistake of joining the army, he pays, but if the administration makes a mistake it’s still the soldier that pays!

36

Russiantank, let me ask you this: If you joined the army – and signed the contract – then your CEO went mad and said that you must attack Britain, would you? Would you simply say: oh well, its in my contract, I guess I better bomb Britain?

A contract is a two way legal contract. You’re signing to become part of a “Defense Force” not an “Offense Force” not a “Private Army” for the coporate/government partnerships from which Bush and friends receive financial kickbacks.

Secondly, what do you think of the German soldiers that went AWOL when they decided Hilter had lost the plot? Do you think they should be punished for breaking their contract, or do you class them as brave heroes for not obeying illegal and immoral orders?

Most Nazi soldiers stayed on and, even though they knew the war was totally lost, they followed Hitlers orders to demolish all German infrastructure so the Allies would have to start from scratch. In other words, they were prepared to take their own country back to the stone age without thinking that THEY would have to live in the conditions THEY were now creating. Is that loyalty or insanity?

37

Well Km2_33, yes, I would do exactly that, I would say, well, then Ide better go bomb britian. Why? Because if i didnt bomb britian, as far as I understand the way the system works in the US, I get dishonerably discharged and alot of other realy bad shit in life after the army. Im not sure, but I think the consequences of disobeying orders usualy are very severe. And as long as my commander, even being mad, has the legal right to order a bombing of britian, then there is nothing I can do to get out of the situation. Why? Because I signed the contract, that said I would do what he asked. My commander signed a contract as well, to do his job, just like I signed and said I would do mine. Now, if he gives an order that is illegal, he is NOT doing his job. And thus I do not have to follow that order, and the law would support me, because once he is in breach of contract, that makes him my superior no longer, thus I do not have to do as he says. But if he tells me to do something that he is legally allowed to do, then I am legally obliged to do it, or suffer the legal consequences.

Now, would I feel really bad about bombing Britain, and killing innocent people. Yes, I would, now the question becomes, how severe is the punishment of disobeying orders, vs how bad I will feal from bombing Britian. And if the punishment is severe enough, then I might have to bomb Britain.

A contract is not neccisarily a two way legal contract. It can be one way. If I handed you a legal document that said you had to hand over 100 dollars, and I didnt have to do anything, and you signed this document, then you must give me 100 dollars or suffer the legal consequences. Now please tell me where in the contract to join the army it says anything about defensive forces, and offensive forces… As far as I understand, all it says is, you are at the mercy of your superiors, sign at your own risk, though the second part I added because it should be obvious to everyone.

Um, the AWOL soldiers WOULD have been punished, if their legal system and government had not been completely demolished at the end of WW2… There was no one there to initiate the punishment. Its not the US law or Russian law or British law to uphold Germany’s legal contracts, thats Germanys job, but Germany was, well… dead. But should they have been punished if Germany still existed? Um… yea… in terms of the German legal system, they broke the law. So relative to Germany, they should be punished. Were Hitlers acts illegal? Considering Hitler was the dictator of a dictatorship, none of his acts are illegal… So all the soldiers that went AWOL indeed broke Hitlers laws. Now, are the laws that they were forced to live under pleasent laws to live under for them? I think not, so if they were unhappy with the situation, they should have tried to do something, anything about it, such as deposing Hitler. But they didnt, and instead, trusted Hitler and joined the army. So when Hitler said kill the jews, they said… uh, damnit, what have I gotten myself into. I dont want to kill jews, so much so that I am willing to risk legal punishment. And so they did that. But this is not really what happend, because Hitler instituted a draft, I think. Im not 100% sure on this, any history buff wana help me out? Anyways, since its a draft, they were forced into the thing the whole way, so, in that case, sux for them. Their only options at that point become doing what Hitler says, facing the risk of punishment, or deposing hitler. And we know they didnt do the latter.

So, as long as the orders Bush gave are legal, then the soldiers that signed the contracts are legally obliged to follow them. Did Bush do anythig illegal? NO! How do I know? Because someone would have prosecuted him by now. And dont tell me him and his republicans have control over everything. Yes his party gives him influences and more power, but there are plenty of very powerfull, prominent democrats in the system that would love to see Bush burn, and I havn’t heard of anyone bringing up legitimate legal claims against George W Bush. If you think this is rediculous, that what he did is legal, go out and call your local representative, and see what you can do to change the laws to your liking. Until then, Bush is working within the legal framework, and so the soldiers are legally obliged to do the same. They can refuse to do as he asks of course, but doing so they legally take the risk of facing legal punishment. Becase everything is legal. I think ive used the word legal like, 150 times in this post.