| BookTalk.org News |
| • If you are having trouble with logging into your account or making posts please know that we are working to resolve this issue. Please delete your temporary Internet files and cookies (at least those for our site) and stay tuned to see if that resolves the issue. If not our web designer believes he can find the code that is causing the issue. |
| Show us where you live! |
 |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
•
See who supports us
|
|
| Author |
Message |
JulianTheApostate 
Sophomore
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 289
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: Ethics of War
|
 |
|
From the discussion of To what extent is moral behavior situational?
| genarroyo wrote: |
| I bet that this "situational" thing causes a lot of headaches for the military (with respect to sending our troops to war). On the one hand the military needs to create people who are capable of killing other people and the soldiers have to adapt to a whole new world. BUT-the military can't create complete killing machines devoid of morals. How is that balance found? |
Wartime ethics is a tough subject, and deserves its own thread. Are soldiers heroes, villains, or somewhere in-between? What ethical guidelines apply on the battlefield? Zimbardo doesn't really address these issues, despite his lengthy discussion of Abu Ghraib.
Coincidentally, I'm starting this thread on Veteran's Day (or Armistice Day if you're European). Earlier today, my wife and I joined some friends for brunch. We had two minutes of silence for Veteran's and Armistice Day. I thought about the hardships, injuries, and deaths among US soldiers in Iraq. However, I couldn't think of them as heroes or feel gratitude for what they're doing.
Regarding genarroyo's example, I was reminded of an article I read about US military training. Most people have an extreme aversion to killing others, even in wartime, and many soldiers refused to do so during the two world wars. The US military subsequently developed a training regiment to overcome that moral barrier and make all soldiers willing to shoot the enemy, in part by dehumanizing the foe.
Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss on these topics. Any opinions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seeker
I can enter The Chamber
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| For every soldier that kills another human being there is an officer who trained him, an army that armed him, a commander-in-chief who sent him forth into battle, and a culture that taught him that it was the right thing to do. I don't know how we can judge the soldier without judging the culture that produced him or her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| seeker wrote: |
| I don't know how we can judge the soldier without judging the culture that produced him or her. |
Little plug here: That's an issue that Arendt talks about to some length in the first full essay of "Responsibility and Judgment". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1436
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| JTA: Are soldiers heroes, villains, or somewhere in-between? |
Yes, they are. As are the civilians, elected officials, and military brass.
| Quote: |
| JTA: What ethical guidelines apply on the battlefield? |
Soldiers are bound by rules of war and codes of honor. These are taught and explained and permeate the whole of their military service. There is no excuse of ignorance regarding laws of conduct in combat situations. Soldiers are well aware when they are breaking these rules, engaging in war crimes or abandoning their codes of honor.
| Quote: |
| JTA: I thought about the hardships, injuries, and deaths among US soldiers in Iraq. However, I couldn't think of them as heroes or feel gratitude for what they're doing. |
Combat related PTSD is a common denominator amongst soldiers who experience enemy or friendly fire, the results of artilery shelling, the ravaged shells, sounds and smells of homes and communities after aerial bombing, and the terrified chaos of civilians seeking protection or revenge. This psychic damage is obviously exacerbated by physical injuries, often requiring two prostethics: one for a missing limb and one for a wounded soul.
The impact of combat PTSD is directly related to how the Soldier is welcomed upon returning home: is he honored and celebrated for his bravery and personal sacrifice; or is he hounded and condemned for his brutality and submission to authority. If the first, then a communal prosthetic is applied; if the latter, then he is traumatized yet again only to increase the damage and deepen the wound.
If the Soldier can justify his violence as a noble act with collateral damage, then he is far better able to quell the demons of PTSD that will hound his sleep, crowded spaces, loud noises, and isolated moments. If not, he will be overcome with terrible memories and shameful recollections that will cripple his interpersonal skills, force him into hiding, and pursue a life of self-laceration and poisoned medication.
I think that only a few sociopaths exist in the military, and they will not be burdened with the guilt of their heinous deeds. The rest are men and women with moral consciences that sting deeply as a result of their deeds in combat.
Still, I think they need to be held accountable and someone must witness to their brutality: as Arendt argues, these deeds must be judged. Because to avoid this unsavory responsibility is to deny their humanity as well as the humanity of their victims, as well as our own humanity as witnesses who share in many ways in the guilt of the crimes they committed while serving in our name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ophelia
Beyond Awesome
Fiction Moderator
Book Discussion Leader
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 1193
Gender: 
Location: France
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:00 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm rather late in joining this thread, but here is something that really interests me.
Julian wrote:
| Quote: |
| Regarding genarroyo's example, I was reminded of an article I read about US military training. Most people have an extreme aversion to killing others, even in wartime, and many soldiers refused to do so during the two world wars. |
I'd like to know if similar things happened to soldiers from other countries during the First or Second World Wars, but I think that, even if it was recorded somewhere, it would be very difficult to access.
One source I read was that there were 306 military trials and executions of British soldiers who did not carry out orders during WWI. It seems that most of them were shell-shocked and were just unable to carry out any orders.
The number of executions was probably higher among French soldiers, but what I had read about earlier were often cases of refusing to fight on political grounds in 1916 and 1917-- which led to immediate executions.
In the American army in WWI, no one was executed ( I mean, by their own people!).
I think here we must distinguish between
1- professional armies and conscripted Armies.
2- Then again, within a professional Army:
a- those who joined because of circumstances , because they needed a job.
b- those who joined (mainly past tense here?) because they felt a belonging to a group of warriors who, for historical and cultural reasons, was a source of pride-- pride was invested in the group, or the caste, rather than in belonging to nations: for example Hindu Warriors (warriors were a caste of their own) or Samurais in Japan, or Genghis Kahn's Mongol warriors in the thirteenth century. It seems inconceivable to me that those warriors would have had any diffculty killing an enemy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JulianTheApostate
Sophomore
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 289
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dissident Heart wrote: |
| Quote: |
| JTA: What ethical guidelines apply on the battlefield? |
Soldiers are bound by rules of war and codes of honor. These are taught and explained and permeate the whole of their military service. |
It's not clear to me what those rules and codes should be. In civilian life, I don't view killing as justified, except in cases of clear self-defense. Since that principle doesn't hold during wartime, what takes its place? If some killing is allowed, what is forbidden and why?
| Dissident Heart wrote: |
| The impact of combat PTSD is directly related to how the Soldier is welcomed upon returning home: is he honored and celebrated for his bravery and personal sacrifice; or is he hounded and condemned for his brutality and submission to authority. |
Wartime experiences have far more impact than what occurs after the soldiers return home. Though WW II soldiers were glorified after they returned to America, many of them were traumatized by the war. Many Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD because that kind of guerrilla warfare is tough for soldiers to come to terms with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1436
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| JTA: Wartime experiences have far more impact than what occurs after the soldiers return home. Though WW II soldiers were glorified after they returned to America, many of them were traumatized by the war. Many Vietnam veterans suffered from PTSD because that kind of guerrilla warfare is tough for soldiers to come to terms with. |
I don't disagree that combat trauma has a greater impact than homecoming for the soldier- rarely, if ever, is the soldier forced to kill or risk being killed on the homefront. But the trauma experienced in combat can be exacerbated by how the soldier is received within his family, the workplace, the community, and the larger political climate: a positive, loving and ceremonial embrace of the warrior will work to heal the terrors of war...it confirms his code of honor and seals his contract with the community for whom he suffered his wounds. Conversely, warriors who are rejected upon homecoming will see their wounds as wasted, their sacrifices for naught, their honor is shamed and they are outcast in the community they hoped to serve. In the latter case, the terrors of combat are unleashed yet again: becoming self-lacerating memories, disabling and debilitating.
Combat traumatizes: the soldier often faces feelings of utter powerlessness and threatened with the fear of death and serious injury. The return to home and society (what our military does not do well) is a crucial part of containing the impact of this trauma. If homecoming is not a ceremony of honor, the trauma is internally re-enacted: yet again, the soldier is powerless before the judgment of his community and his place in that society is threatened with rejection and even scapegoating: life as he knew it is over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Beyond Awesome
BookTalk.org Moderator
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1068
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
Soldiers are bound by rules of war and codes of honor. These are taught and explained and permeate the whole of their military service. There is no excuse of ignorance regarding laws of conduct in combat situations. Soldiers are well aware when they are breaking these rules, engaging in war crimes or abandoning their codes of honor. |
Being a wartime veteran who saw action I can attest to the truth of the above statement. We were drilled constantly on what was acceptable and what was not, we were even given copies of the Geneva Convention to study.
Furthermore we were regularly reminded that an immoral order was not lawful and if we questioned any such order inaction was acceptable. We had also been given examples of what constituted a lawful order and what did not. The line was clear and the consequences of crossing it well known.
| Quote: |
DH
Combat related PTSD is a common denominator amongst soldiers who experience enemy or friendly fire, the results of artillery shelling, the ravaged shells, sounds and smells of homes and communities after aerial bombing, and the terrified chaos of civilians seeking protection or revenge. This psychic damage is obviously exacerbated by physical injuries, often requiring two prosthetics: one for a missing limb and one for a wounded soul. |
These terrible conditions while tragic are relatively rare. I know dozens of combat veterans from both Desert Storm and the current conflict; some were wounded but none suffer from PTSD or have prosthetics.
Most of us have dreadful and sometimes funny stories and interesting scars but that’s about it. Most of the guys I talk to about it now actually had a positive experience over there. Many volunteer to return unasked.
If the latest numbers I have seen on the subject are still accurate (it’s been a while) those conditions affect well under 1% of soldiers returning from war. In fact right now our total wounded in the four plus years of war are still under 1% of the troops currently in the region. This is an alarmingly low causality rate and is unheard of in war time, even during an occupation.
| Quote: |
DH
If the Soldier can justify his violence as a noble act with collateral damage, then he is far better able to quell the demons of PTSD that will hound his sleep, crowded spaces, loud noises, and isolated moments. If not, he will be overcome with terrible memories and shameful recollections that will cripple his interpersonal skills, force him into hiding, and pursue a life of self-laceration and poisoned medication. |
I suppose this is true of some the soldiers that suffer from PTSD but like I said that condition seems to be rather rare. The survey numbers are also exaggerated due to the many pretenders seeking a free ride from the government.
| Quote: |
DH
Still, I think they need to be held accountable and someone must witness to their brutality: as Arndt argues, these deeds must be judged. |
I think judging a soldier in the field is problematic. The judgment all too often comes from a group of people who have never seen combat, they spend hours second guessing a decision made in a fraction of a second in the heat of battle.
They have no right to judge a soldier, they are too ignorant.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1436
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:17 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Frank: These terrible conditions while tragic are relatively rare. I know dozens of combat veterans from both Desert Storm and the current conflict; some were wounded but none suffer from PTSD or have prosthetics. |
I don't think they are as rare as you think. I know there is substantial fear among soldiers to speak out regarding their emotional turmoil and tell the truth about their mental anguish: it labels them as weak, unfit, unstable and not suited to be soldier- thus severely diminishing their chances at promotion or securing their place within the profession. Soliders don't know who to turn to with their symptoms for fear of reprimand and challenge of their character: being deemed a coward by your superiors and peers is a terrifying prospect. I happen to work very closely with the VA and soldiers who have been recently deployed from Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as every war since Korea: military chaplains, counselors, therapists, psychiatrists, medical doctors, chemical dependency specialists, community service agencies....many of which describe a very different picture than yours. I think the numbers you refer to are a result of soldiers not disclosing to other soldiers, and especially not to their superiors....but they are telling their wives, families, therapists and chaplains something much different. Not all, I agree, but far more than you assert above.
| Quote: |
| Frank: The survey numbers are also exaggerated due to the many pretenders seeking a free ride from the government. |
No doubt there are a few in every bunch who want to swindle the system for a free ride- no matter the issue. But I think your comment here confirms in no small way just how soliders hesitate to speak openly about this issue: their character is maligned and they are considered cheats or liars, or worse, cowards.
| Quote: |
| Frank: I think judging a soldier in the field is problematic. The judgment all too often comes from a group of people who have never seen combat, they spend hours second guessing a decision made in a fraction of a second in the heat of battle. They have no right to judge a soldier, they are too ignorant. |
I agree it's problematic. Judgment of any behavior is complicated. Throw in a system of rigid hierarchy, trained soldiers willing and able to kill or be killed, the terrors of battle, the adrenaline of combat, the confusion of determining combattant from innocent, the mishaps of military technologies...and finding accountability for precise behavior becomes extremely problematic. But I think a citizenry must hold its soldiers accountable, no matter the difficulty in determining what happened and why. A democratic society not only has a right, but an obligation to demand that those who kill in its name be accountable for the mistakes they commit in the process. There must be oversight and evaluation that is not compromised by conflict of interests. The soldier is a citizen first and no warriors' code or soldier's solidarity should, as I see it, compromise that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Beyond Awesome
BookTalk.org Moderator
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1068
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
I don't think they are as rare as you think. |
Well I can only go by the soldiers and ex-soldiers that I know (which is more than just a few) and 100% of us are not afflicted by any such problems, nor have I heard of any through friends of friends (which would constitute whole platoons of soldiers). That’s quite a few soldiers and ex-soldiers with 0 cases of PTSD.
| Quote: |
DH
I know there is substantial fear among soldiers to speak out regarding their emotional turmoil and tell the truth about their mental anguish: it labels them as weak, unfit, unstable and not suited to be soldier- thus severely diminishing their chances at promotion or securing their place within the profession. |
Of course there is fear… we risk (or risked) our lives, but that anxiety is not about talking about our fear. The army I was in had no problems with admitting fear, its how one acted in the face of that fear that made or broke a soldier.
| Quote: |
DH
Soldiers don't know who to turn to with their symptoms for fear of reprimand and challenge of their character: |
Sure we do, in the field we turn to each other, we are brothers in arms after all! Later there is family, friends, even the military Chaplin is available if needed.
| Quote: |
DH
But I think a citizenry must hold its soldiers accountable, no matter the difficulty in determining what happened and why. A democratic society not only has a right, but an obligation to demand that those who kill in its name be accountable for the mistakes they commit in the process. There must be oversight and evaluation that is not compromised by conflict of interests. The soldier is a citizen first and no warriors' code or soldier's solidarity should, as I see it, compromise that. |
My only objections are
One… who is doing the Judging? There are scarce few people who I would agree have knowledge or common sense enough to truly understand and evaluate the combat actions of a soldier. Even the justified killing of enemy combatants is loathsome to the average citizen. Furthermore most have never had to make life and death decisions in a fraction of a second. I do not believe that any one who hasn’t has the ability give a fair and unbiased judgment over an action of that sort.
Many soldiers who some would put on trial are only able to be tried because of the action they are being condemned for. In other words if they had not taken the “illegal” action they would have been killed.
We have a saying in the military and in law enforcement it has sprung up over the last 10 years or so… it goes “I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6” this of course is a reflection of the times and how even actions taken to save life are harshly (and often unfairly) scrutinized.
For many of us the fear of an unjust trial by ignorant civilians is far more intense than anything we feel while in action.
Second… if we are talking about mistakes, they are going to happen, placing blame and demanding punishment is in no way helpful, it will not stop future mistakes from being made (their mistakes for crying out loud!), it just adds to the stress of the soldier.
That sort of stress causes soldiers to second guess their actions, indecision in combat costs lives.
Now if you are talking about malicious action and unprofessional behavior… then yes, by all means punishment is justified after a reasonable investigation exposes such behavior, but exposing the action is the hard part when dealing with a band of brothers isn’t it?
Later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
