Morality Issues and the Military

[Kat Stevens]

Heck we have clearance divers here in Halifax who are in the sandbox right now......who ever would have thought they'd be doing that stuff.....and before anyone asks me why they need divers there...think about what they do when they search the harbour floor and the bottom of ships. 

Scraping barnacles?

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Scraping barnacles?

yeah yeah that's it! :

 

[armyvern]

yeah yeah that's it! :

It was a gooder though!!  ;D  He's kidding!!

 

[Staff Weenie]

Here I thought they were diving for spare change thrown from cruise ships......

On topic - I'm actually quite glad that people do debate this issue here. And, I'm also glad that Canadians at large show concern about the absolute finality of taking a life, and the need to ensure our country never undertakes such action without serious thought. I'm also tired of all the 18 year old wannabe ninja-sniper. False bravado is plain foolish, and if they think it's that easy to look through the scope and kill somebody, then they're probably due for a head-check.

Being in the Health Services, I've had quite a few troops who really want to serve Canada, but just can't see themselves in an offensive role. Some quit, especially once it's made crystal clear that they must defend their patient, their unit, and themselves. I've also watched many others come to realise that there is indeed a time and place where one will need to use lethal means to protect our country and values.

 

[Sig_Des]

This is one of those topics that many find hard to understand. It's also one of those topics that ANY who are considering joining the CF and those who are members of the CF should seriously consider.

Society in general tells us throughout our entire upbringing that is is abhorrent to kill or to cause harm to others. Get into a fight in the playground, and you are told that that is wrong. You should turn the other cheek. Killing is bad. Many religions state that if you kill, you may very well end up in hell.

Most people who join the military do not do so with the expectation or desire that they will have to kill someone.

But those who serve need to put a lot of those moral issues and upbringing to the side once they join. You see this from the first time you fire your weapon, at a target shaped to simulate a charging enemy soldier.

As a member of the military, you need to be aware that in a conflict, any action you take, duty you perform, or order you give may very well, either directly or indirectly, cause the grievous harm or death of another human being. Wether you are the infantryman with the enemy in your sights, or the vehicle tech who fixed the vehicle that carried the soldiers to a TIC, or the clerk who pays the members, you have played a hand in the action.

While you may go your entire career without first-hand dealing of said situation, you are a part of a large organisation that is prepared to kill.

This isn't done for the sake of just killing. As mentioned, there is a time and a place for any sort of action. But we must be prepared to take that action, and to take that action at a moment's notice, without having any ingrained moral issues causing hesitation, as that may come at a cost of more lives.

If an individual is unable to come to terms with this due to their moral beliefs, they should not join, or stay in the military. There are many different ways to honourably serve ones country and people without actual military service.

But if you cannot, in good conscience, perform acts that may be required of you in the military, you should not be IN the military. Not trying to be callous here, just realistic.

 

[MG34]

It's all fine and dandy to blab on about the sancity of life and how you can do no harm...blah blah blah The fact is if you join the CF with these beliefs you are an idiot.Everyone is expected to do their duty and not let down the team,if the unit is involve din combat that means killing the bad guy if you see him first so as to stop he/she/it from harming a team member,you watch their backs they watch yours. If one link in this chain fails the team fails.There are numerous instances of padres, nurses etc having to pick up a weapon and join into the fight,so no trade is immune from having to some day  killing the enemy.
  I find all forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life, and do not tolerate them as a rule, I find it to be the ultimate cop out, a means of shirking one's duty to their country or in some cases community.
  BTW it is not socially abhorrant to kill the bad guy or enemy it is your duty when called upon to legally perform it, murder of an innocent is a different story.

 

[2 Cdo]

It's all fine and dandy to blab on about the sancity of life and how you can do no harm...blah blah blah The fact is if you join the CF with these beliefs you are an idiot.Everyone is expected to do their duty and not let down the team,if the unit is involve din combat that means killing the bad guy if you see him first so as to stop he/she/it from harming a team member,you watch their backs they watch yours. If one link in this chain fails the team fails.There are numerous instances of padres, nurses etc having to pick up a weapon and join into the fight,so no trade is immune from having to some day  killing the enemy.
  I find all forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life, and do not tolerate them as a rule, I find it to be the ultimate cop out, a means of shirking one's duty to their country or in some cases community.
  BTW it is not socially abhorrant to kill the bad guy or enemy it is your duty when called upon to legally perform it, murder of an innocent is a different story.

Bravo, well said!(especially the bold)

 

[FascistLibertarian]

I find all forms of pacifisim to be a disgusting way of life

So Mennonites disgust you?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am willing to respect a pacifist who is totally willing to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs and those beliefs affect everything they do. I just can’t stand the ones who “cherry pick” the benefits and ignore the costs of that belief.

 

[Greymatters]

I am willing to respect a pacifist who is totally willing to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs and those beliefs affect everything they do. I just can’t stand the ones who “cherry pick” the benefits and ignore the costs of that belief.

+1!

 

[Sig_Des]

Agreed.

While I don't personally agree with Pacificism, I can respect their beliefs. My problem is when they a) are agressive pacifists who think those who don't believe in it are horrible people or b) choose to disregard their beliefs, and put themselves in situations where their beliefs will conflict with their duties, and then expect people to understand and allow them to shirk their responsibilities due to their beliefs.

 

[MG34]

The unfortunate result of a "hard core" pasifist is that someone else will have to step in to accomplish what they refuse to do.

As for the Mennoites: At least they supported the war efforts during WW1 and WW2, I don't agree with their principals and beliefs but they do serve a purpose, unlike a spoiled teenager or 20 something that takes up the cause of pasifism because it's in fashion or a way to shirk there responsibilities.

 

[Sig_Des]

unlike a spoiled teenager or 20 something that takes up the cause of pasifism because it's in fashion or a way to shirk there responsibilities.

I will definitely give this one to you MG. Living in Ottawa, you tend to come across a lot of University students who've taken this up as a rallying cry, because it's a thing to do....Even though it's their first year away from Mom and Pop, or they're still living in a comfortable suburb with a 2 car garage, with their folks paying for everything.

But I do like to think that many pacifist, wether we see them as misguided or not, do have their own viable reasons for their beliefs. And can practice their beliefs because of us, and so many of those before us.

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

There is no such things as absolute morality.

 

[Sig_Des]

There is no such things as absolute morality.

I tend to lean more towards situational ethics, where the morality of an act depends on the context of the act. We all know right and wrong, and I figure if you try to stick to the right of things, you should be allright.

Course, I also like, if it feels good do it. Even if you shouldn't 

But as we all know, everyone has their own beliefs.

 

[smitty66]

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that Des is speaking about morality issues!

 

[Sig_Des]

Has anyone else noticed the irony in the fact that Des is speaking about morality issues!

;D

I was wondering how long it would take someone to pick up on that....of course it'd be you, Smitty. I guess you've seen some of my moral judgement firsthand.

 

[smitty66]

I was waiting patiently for someone to say something...... finally couldn't resist!

All joking aside, I personally have no problem with someone who has an aversion to violence. That's their call. If they feel like serving their country or community, there are lots of ways to do it. Firefighters, paramedics, and medical professionals just to name a few. I do however have a problem with people who to quote the phase used earlier "Cherry-pick" the time and place to voice their desire to abstain from conflict after taking the "Queen's Shilling". If you sign on the line, you had better be prepared for the possibility.
My 2 cents.

Cheers

 

[xena]

Intriguing thread, considering that it seems to have been started by a troll.  :

I'd say I have to second what Colin has already said, in that even though I don't agree with absolute pacifism, I respect it, and I respect the people who will follow it through to it's conclusions (ie. people who won't call the police if someone breaks into their house because the police carry firearms & would use force).  I know it sounds retarded intellectually differently abled, but I have met people who have that conviction.  They are darned few, but they exist.

I am conversely repulsed by those who conveniently select ("cherry pick" - good term!) portions of whole belief systems to compile their philosophies and scrupulously avoid the consequences of their "convictions".  I am amazed at how many "pacifists" I encounter who have increasingly bizarre definitions of the term.  I recently encountered one where a pacifist was one who did not "oppress" anyone - the use of force was okay, as long as it wasn't "oppressive" (ie. the police are okay, but the military isn't).  What a load a ....

Some pacifists are the most angry, and intellectually violent people (they try to argue you into agreeing with them and react emotionally when you point out the flaws in their beliefs) I've ever met.  Not all though...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>There is no such things as absolute morality.

Yes there is.  Start with this rule: always pursue the greater right and avoid the greater wrong.

It is always wrong to lie, to kill, to cheat, etc.  The idea is to always adopt the least wrong when faced with no wholly right alternatives.  Note that a choice between right and wrong is not a moral dilemma.  When someone contrives a situation in which "it's OK to do <wrong>", what is really (or should be) meant is that the <wrong> is the least harmful alternative.  The main point of ethics is really just to spell out guidance (values) and rules for resolving dilemmas, particularly when the course which might reasonably be chosen by an individual conflicts with a social imperative (professional duty).

The phrase "morals are a choice" doesn't mean that one has the power to decide what is right or wrong.  It just means one has the power to decide whether to act rightly or wrongly.

Both means and ends should be considered.  Intentions matter, but are not an excuse for ignorance or laziness.  People have a duty to explore the likely and possible consequences of their actions.

A soldier has no inherent moral authority greater than any other person to harm anything or anyone except in self-preservation.  All such authority is delegated from and determined by the interests of the society a soldier serves.  (Whether any social organization has any moral authority to delegate the power to kill and destroy in the pursuit of anything less than self-preservation or the preservation of third parties is an interesting question, to which I suspect the answer is "No".)  The soldier must be willing and able to accept and exercise that delegated authority (eg. possess "killer instinct" or at least "martial spirit"), all the limitations on the exercise of its powers (eg. laws of conflict), and the consequences of personal liability.