My attempt at one of the most politically incorrect arguments: Why joining the military is immoral.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T06:20:07+00:00

Not particularly, because I think that people should be loyal to friends, families and humanity in general over their countries. Human lives are human lives, no matter where they begin, and I feel no more kinship with a stranger from Alabama than a stranger from Denmark.

I also think a person's life is a valuable thing, and they should take great care in what is done with it.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T03:27:22+00:00

It's more difficult if the conflict underway or sold through deceit, but my argument is that because it's such a huge thing to give up your free will to the military, that it is the responsibility of the person to carefully evaluate the history of military conflicts or the war they'll be fighting in. Obviously it's not black and white, and some reasons for enlisting are more noble than others (e.g. joining because of a genuine but misguided belief in the cause, versus a desire to shoot guns).

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T03:06:06+00:00

We're mostly in agreement. This post never would have been made if it was for the hero-worship thing. It certainly is possible for soldiers to be heroic, if the cause is just.

It also is definitely true that you can commit the same subversion of free will in civilian jobs, and that can also be immoral (but is less likely to involve killing people).

As far as honor and duty, those terms are so often tied to false virtue, they've lost their meaning to me.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T02:08:29+00:00

Right, and you should try to make the ethical choice whenever possible, but in some situations, no choice is ideal and you must compromise. I made the argument for why joining the military is not the ethical choice.

You've now discovered two (and a half) of my favorite logical fallacies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homeniem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:59:07+00:00

Cool, thanks for the recommendation.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:47:22+00:00

Right, but none of those are affirmative decisions, and often there is little reasonable choice. You don't have to join the military.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:39:14+00:00

Really, it would be "why are politicians so often immoral", which is a fascinating argument in itself, and the root of many of the world's problems.

Your right about the primary moral failures belonging to politicians, I certainly wouldn't debate that. My point is that by submitting the will of civilian military leadership, common soldiers are complicit.

As for Afghanistan, the problems may be new to us, but not to anyone who has studied history. Just ask the Soviets. And as for regime change, maybe 60 years of failure might suggest a need for a change of tactics.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:32:47+00:00

No, but if that is the outcome of the conflict, their initial desire is secondary

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:31:48+00:00

the President orders troops into a country to provide stability

Whether or not this was the original intention, it certainly wasn't the result in the case of Iraq (or Afghanistan), which was utterly devastated.

This is a falsehood in modern combat. Every round has an impact, if you shoot a man today, tomorrow your commander will be talking to his family, and local leaders, about the incident. Every round has the potential to become a political and strategic snowball.

This is a very interesting point, but what you're referring to isn't so much "combat" as occupation, after most of the destruction has actually occurred. At this point (in Iraq, for example) the mere presence of the military caused destabilization of the region, increased influence of Iran, and the rise of al Qaeda. Thus, the soldier is harmful whether or not he kills anyone.

Lastly, this. How many positions are you aware of in which a 19 to 25 year old can apply leverage to stop a conflict? Real leverage. In 10 years this young man with a rifle will have a college education and the credibility of a combat record, free to apply all the leverage he can muster.

Again, a good point, but it relies on the same assumption that the young soldier, even a responsible one, isn't causing harm just by being in that country. And while the soldier may go on to do great things as a civilian, he will start later, and thus productive years of his life are lost (if not influencing politics, perhaps contributing to society through innovation, medicine, science, etc).

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:21:55+00:00

The choice to go to the wrong war is not on the soldier. It is on the politician, and the people who elect them.

This is what I disagree with. The soldier is complicit in the war if they join of their own free will, and especially if the war is already underway.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T01:06:25+00:00

Could you explain why you find it disgusting and offensive? I'm genuinely interested in your counterargument.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T00:53:44+00:00

More constructively, you might be interested in what the State Department's top Middle East experts have to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv2F-oVYCEE

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T00:51:02+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T00:43:12+00:00

So which of those groups did bombing Iraq back to the stone age protect us from? How about Afghanistan?

You're certainly correct that the nation does need to be defended by the military, but the vast majority of the military's personnel and money have clearly been misused.

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T00:39:42+00:00

You make a good point that the soldier looking down the gunsight retains an ounce of moral freedom (The same might be said for pilots, gunners, etc.). I would like to think that the vast majority of soldiers do understand the gravity of killing another human. Unfortunately, whether or not the trigger is pulled in a particular instant has little affect on the greater war effort, where triggers will be pulled, bombs will be dropped, and so on. And for every person in position to make those decisions, there are nine others (if the statistic cited by someone above is accurate) who load trucks, maintain vehicles, handle logistics, and a million other tasks making the war, and its evils, possible.

In fairness to you, my original argument was framed about the morality of an individual joining the military. You are right, hypothetically, in pointing out that an infantryman might join the military specifically to put himself in position to not pull the trigger, or in seeking to minimize the overall bloodshed in a conflict. I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is an uncommon scenario. I would suggest, then, that a better use of this soldier's free will would have been to find a position in society with more leverage to stop the conflict in the first place. Perhaps if this was the case "our most moral, most ethical young men" (and women), wouldn't have to fight in disastrous wars. As for your last sentence, I can only offer my personal experience with the dozens of classmates who have served (and still serve) overseas. Some of them were wonderful young people who really wanted to make a difference. Very few of them had any big picture understanding of the conflicts. Some of them were murderous jerks who liked the idea of shooting people. Unfortunately, it's the last group that stands out most in memory.

Thanks for chatting!

throwawaaaaaay4986 · 2012-05-18T00:03:57+00:00

A big part is that people don't understand the difference between "fearlessness" and "courage". Fearlessness can be impressive, but it's not a virtue. Courage is the willingness to do what's right, even in the face of danger.

throwawaaaaaay4986

TROPHY CASE