Class 2: Moral Dilemmas
1. How do you think about the difference between moral dilemmas and moral
temptation?
1.1. Dilemmas present ethical challenges you reason through; temptations, you
rationalize to steer toward a personal preference.
1.1.1. How do I think about them though? I try very hard to recognize and avoid
the latter. And when presented with a dilemma, try to avoid selecting
alternatives that engender temptation
1.1.2. Agree. Kicker is that just b/c it's what you want, doesn't mean is
temptation, can still be dilemma (or just Right!).
1.1.2.1.
Correct, but you have to be aware that the temptation exists and
take care navigating it; make sure you choose on the basis of ethics and
not convenience, expediency, or self-aggrandizement
1.2. Moral dilemmas are about other people (or society), temptations are about the
individual (what I want/need versus what's best).
1.3. Former is situation in which you compromise one of two values you hold
simultaneously; latter is a willpower failure
1.4. MDs occur when you believe there are no positive utilitarian outcomes MTs are
when your personal prejudices weigh into decisions
1.4.1. Interesting; that's a Wrong vs Wrong idea of MD; what about Right vs
Right dilemmas (choice b/t competing moral values?) #METC
1.4.2. Meant to convey with "utilitarian," that with MDs there is not a more
positive outcome between multiple choices; good or bad
1.4.3. I'm with you 100% on the personal prejudices / desires inclining us toward
moral temptation.
1.5. Through rationalization and a measure of willful self-delusion, a moral
temptation can be made to appear to be a moral dilemma.
1.5.1. Absolutely. That's what I argued on the blog today; we have an incredible
ability to rationalize: http://bit.ly/WoXor0
1.6. It's tough esp when u r left w/ not so great choices. But if there is dire need to
decide u settle for the lesser evil.
1.7. Convenience, expediency, & self-aggrandizement ID temptation or 'Right'
choice. Important. Folks tend to think that the "Right" thing has to be hard or not
serve you. Can be easy & in your best interest; just rarely ONLY so.
1.7.1. Reminds me of the principle of double effect.
1.8. Applying Kidder's model is a good way to tell the difference between right v
right and right v wrong, but... more important (I think) is figuring out what to do
once you've ID'd what it is.
1.8.1. . @forbesmm has done this before. He sees that step 1 is IDing the
situation (dilemma or temptation); Step 2 is figure out what to do.
1.9. What is it about Marines that'd make them feel more loyal to each other than to
society? Not "temptation," but alienation?
2. Now we're going to talk about IDing moral dilemma vs temptation. Who will
volunteer a scenario so we can analyze?
2.1. The catch here, I think, is that one person's dilemma might be another's
temptation. I'm thinking (e.g.) of targeted killing. Kill vs. no kill is a moral
dilemma to some; killing a temptation to others.
2.1.1. Well, if the system one derives their morals from says 'x' is unequivocally
wrong, then no dilemma, no issue, no discussion,
2.1.1.1.
should not a true moral dilemma be universal?
2.1.1.1.1.
In theory, maybe, but I think different people contextualize
their values differently.
2.1.1.1.2.
I don't see why, especially if it involves a personal dilemma
2.1.1.1.3.
If one subscribes to the concept of moral universalism, a
moral dilemma will apply across all cultural lines.
2.1.1.1.4.
operative term "WOULD apply" insofar as even universals
would be filtered through cultural lenses
2.1.1.2.
Does a culture/person's rejection of a fundamental moral tenet
diminish its moral force? Should we allow it to?
2.1.1.2.1.
I don’t believe that denial alters the validity of an ethical
precept; only its local interpretation / acceptance and local
adoption / alteration of the precept doesn't make that alteration
"right" to the individual holder or lessen the individual holder's
obligation to uphold the precept. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2.1.1.2.2.
So can it not then be said that a moral dilemma founded on
sound ethical principles would be universal?
2.1.1.2.3.
I think the dilemma could be universal but its resolution
affected by the varied interpretations of the norms. For instance,
ponder honor killing.
2.1.1.2.3.1.
Go on... I'm eager to see which way you are going
to go with this.
2.1.1.2.4.
Well, the aggrieved parties hold to the sanctity of life
(universal), but place family honor above it (local). Recognizing
that does not invalidate the precept regarding life and killing; nor
does it lessen the West's viewing of the act as repugnant and
criminal. But our objection doesn't invalidate the local acceptance
of the act. So you have a universal precept that values life,
eschews killing with radically different, yet culturally valid,
applications/ interpretations.
2.1.1.2.4.1.
It's not moral relativism, since each group is
convinced they're right.
2.1.1.2.4.2.
It's moral relativism if we are compelled to let them
act per their own interpretations, though- ie, honor killing.
2.1.1.2.4.3.
There's nothing about morality that says you have
an obligation to impose your moral system on others
2.1.1.2.4.4.
Morality qua morality no. As a standalone concept.
When coupled with religion maybe. But must be taken into
account if other combatants consider it a platform for
engagement.
2.1.1.2.4.4.1. might in fact be part of the system - a principle of
nontolerance.
2.1.1.2.5.
Begging question what part in conflict is opposition's
forcing morality on situation? have to take the pushing of morals
by one side into account.
2.1.1.2.5.1.
might be if you have to deal w effects of that view.
2.1.1.2.6.
and to what extent do we get engaged in conflicts to force
ours on others? or to stop others from forcing theirs?
2.1.1.2.6.1.
Good question! My thoughts arose from following:
N. Caucasus issue. Not only do you have Muslim (and
others, admittedly) insurgents you have Salafist vs. Sufi. And
each has a different relative position vis a vis Russian
occupation. But Salafist are pushing for independence based
on Shari'aa concept of Islamic rule, while Sufis are looking
for accepting Ru as long as Islam is given more than short
shrift. SOOoo... If Salafists force THEIR concept of morals
on situation based on religion, you would have to take the
pushing of morals by one side into account.
2.1.1.2.6.1.1. Yes. But is that sufficient justification for an outside
party to become involved?
2.1.1.2.6.1.2. if we are talking about an engagement in terms of
being just one battle existing in a "bubble of isolation",
a singular incident then no. BUT if you take a "conflict"
in the sense of an extended issue then I believe so,
because if one side is presenting a counter-ideology and
forcing it there has to be an appreciation of that impact
upon the battle as such
2.1.1.2.6.1.3. then add culture issues intersecting w morality +
religion. Messy
2.1.1.2.6.1.3.1.
Nothing is idealogically neutral
2.1.1.2.6.1.3.2.
I would agree with that.
2.1.1.2.6.1.4. and effects how one fights; how one thinks of the
'rules'/what is off limits
2.1.1.2.6.2.
Good one. Even if not moral relativism, got
pluralism to deal w.
2.1.1.3.
Can values like justice and loyalty, be social or are they universal?
2.1.1.3.1.
The concepts may be universal but their interpretation and
application, cultural and short of absolute. We all share the
concept of justice but have different rubrics for applying it
2.1.2. It only becomes a theoretically interesting case when an actual dilemma is
present.
2.1.2.1.
I asked folks for a dilemma, but they're being shy. What do you
have?
2.1.2.2.
There was some interesting stuff in the article about 3/101 in Iraq.
ROE/LOAC vs BCT Cdr orders, maybe?
2.1.2.2.1.
MD or MT from Steele's viewpoint? Protecting his men vs.
orders from command. Implement COIN or use conventional
tactics?
2.1.2.2.1.1.
can be either, depending on whether personally
affected (MT) or socially affronted/ aghast (MD)
2.1.2.2.1.2.
I got the distinct impression Steele had a great
personal stake in his action, thus MT. His imposing his own
ethic / ROE and subsequent reticence to follow orders reek
of rationalization
2.1.2.2.1.2.1. Sure, but personal stake was altruistic -- protect his
troops. Is that enough?
2.1.2.2.1.2.1.1.
not when weighed against the greater good
of the overall objective/ mission
2.1.2.2.1.2.1.2.
Personally, I agree 100%, but lots of people
find him compelling. Q is how to convince to
others.
2.1.2.2.1.2.1.2.1.
By positing that his immediate
loyalty to his troops placed others at greater
and longer term risk. The
individual/societal greater good dilemma;
but I still see it as temptation to be "right"
2.1.2.2.1.2.1.2.2.
Right.His tactical "victories" led to a
strategic loss.More troops died after he left,
region was more unstable
2.1.2.2.1.3.
I always ask what authority does X have for taking
his actions? Conviction's not enough
2.1.2.2.2.
I argue MT. Compromised mission based on his experience
in Somalia. Refusal to implement COIN/# of Iraqi deaths caused
long-term harm
2.1.2.3.
3/101 replaced us, in late 2005 / early 2006. We knew immediately
that their BDE CO was not one of our best/brightest.
2.1.2.4.
Dilemma I dealt with- directed to pursue manslaughter case where
I was convinced guy was not guilty; justice v duty to obey
2.1.2.4.1.
Now that's a dilemma! Looks like you signed off. Let's talk
later.
2.1.2.4.2.
Dilemma was real - Justice v Loyalty. Wasn't fun. Tried to
avoid by getting bosses to come around; didn't work. Very tough.
2.1.3. How one chooses to resolve the dilemma will be predicated on the
individual and their cultural background
2.1.3.1.
Agree, but think it also affects how they relate to the problem
(dilemma or temptation)
2.1.4. Scenario: a law abiding citizen who contemplates civil disobedience
because they feel the laws are unjust
2.1.4.1.
viz: Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi - never sought to escape
consequences; made them part of their civ dis. Truly law-abiding
citizen contemplating civ dis will weigh and accept the consequences
of their act a la Camus
2.1.4.1.1.
Regardless of defensibility of one's choice, one is always
accountable for consequences
2.1.4.2.
Are they a devoted parent? Dilemma. Are they unattached and all
their friends are doing it? Temptation.
2.1.4.2.1.
Are they engaged because affronted personally (temptation)
or socially (dilemma).
2.1.4.3.
In Canadian context? I have zero tolerance.
2.1.4.3.1.
Zero tolerance for civil dis sounds like demand for
accountability. Can't punish and be right?
2.1.4.3.1.1.
Laws that are "immoral" aren't laws. The question
of immorality subjective in today's social construct.
2.1.4.3.1.1.1. Aren't laws or aren't binding (do not have obligation
to obey)
2.1.4.3.1.2.
You still have a responsibility to obey; you may
choose to accept the consequences of disobedience.
2.1.4.3.1.3.
A law may totally be immoral and still carry the
force of law see: Jim Crow
2.1.4.3.1.3.1. Right. Law + morality don't always map.
2.1.4.3.1.3.1.1.
and if you're law abiding, that can raise a
serious dilemma
2.1.4.3.2.
I would contend that they aren't laws.
2.1.4.3.2.1.
Depends what your view of law is - yours is the
classic natural law view.
2.1.4.3.2.2.
Are u saying all laws are moral by virtue of being
law? Who decides what laws r really laws then?
2.1.4.3.2.2.1. California's 3 strikes is law, but hugely immoral in
application
2.1.4.3.2.2.1.1.
and depending on view of morality, more
examples. Why some reject law/morality link.
2.1.4.3.2.3.
But they are laws. That's not a matter of opinion,
that's fact. You just may find them unjust. Dickens - "if that
is the law, then the law is an ass"
2.1.4.3.2.3.1. Sometimes the law is an ass! There's a built in time
lag in democracies. And democracies are faster than
other societies!
2.1.4.3.2.4.
I guess morality and ethics matters when choosing
leaders. Ethical leaders=ethical laws?
2.1.4.3.2.4.1. that's what Plato thought!
2.1.4.3.2.4.1.1.
Many that disagree w/laws surround
themselves w/like minds-states, communes
2.1.4.3.2.4.1.2.
Right. You thinking law is immoral does
not make it so.
2.1.4.3.2.4.1.3.
Agreed... Just like the "constitutionalists
that refuse to pay taxes
2.1.4.3.2.4.2. Same and I wasn't referring to the past.
2.1.4.3.2.4.3. in which case you can oppose them so long as you
are willing to accept consequences
2.1.4.3.2.5.
This is why I adhere to the Canadian context. There
is an absence of historical baggage per U.S. I can't think of
an example of codified immorality.
2.1.4.3.2.5.1. I can't in the modern US. Historically and
internationally, easily.
2.1.4.3.2.5.2. My point also; morality is subject to interpretation
in religious context for one example.
2.1.4.3.2.6.
More interesting than whether unjust "laws" are in
fact laws is--when must u obey them
2.1.4.3.2.6.1. I would say any time ur not willing to accept
consequences of disobedience.
2.1.4.3.2.6.2. No because Aldrich Ames is still scum even if he's
accepting his consequences. Sometimes consequences
are not near enough to remedy the harm
2.1.4.3.2.6.2.1.
but he spied for money, didn't he? Not
conscience. I think that matters here.
2.1.4.3.2.6.2.2.
Sure. Point just whether disobedience
justified=more than whether willing to go to jail
2.1.4.4.
So what about violence to immoral laws. Is the German private
ordered to execute Jews justified in firing on his officers?
2.1.4.4.1.
There is no moral decision to be made if they will die no
matter what. MD is whether to kill Jews or officers if Jews saved
2.1.4.4.2.
Whether to shoot a Jew or not is not a moral decision? Or
even to stand by and watch without protest while it is done?
2.1.4.4.3.
It is an illegal act, and one should protest. But if a foregone
conclusion, where is the moral choice in your original scenario?
2.1.4.5.
I may want universality, but I also see the folks who want to bomb
abortion clinics.
2.1.4.6.
If you honestly believe a law will force u to commit an immoral
act, how can I force u to do it?
2.1.4.7.
But be prepared to suffer consequences for ur choice. Moral
stands aren't supposed to be easy.
3. Kidder notes that everyone has their own priorities in the moral dilemmas (some are
inclined to justice over mercy or vice versa). Moral Dilemmas = Truth vs Loyalty;
Individual vs Collective; Short-Term vs Long-Term, and Justice vs Mercy. Where
are you?
3.1. The hardest part about justice/morality is not viewing it through a screen of
what's best for me, even subconsciously
3.1.1. Absolutely. On one hand, inevitable; on the other hand (when talking @
professional responsibility); inexcusable.
3.2. Interesting. Moral dilemma or moral vacuum? RT @MichaelHueser:
http://bit.ly/WSJa2H from @KingsofWar
3.3. I'm not sure it's useful to specify as a matter of principle.....too hedgehog-y.
3.3.1. Can you say more? I don't understand what you mean. (I guess I'm not a
hedgehog?)
3.3.2. I meant that it seems reductionist. "Hedgehog-y" is a reference to an old
Isaiah Berlin essay on Tolstoy http://bit.ly/INr78 .
4. Where does loyalty ultimately rest in the military?
4.1. Upholding the Constitution, which our leaders have also sworn to uphold. What
if one or more appear to not be doing so?
5. Excellent read. #METC cc @johnsonr MT @washingtonpost: Marine Capt. @TKudo
on war, ethics and suicide: http://wapo.st/V4nalW
5.1. The key, I believe, is in being able to reconcile and live with "wrong but
necessary"
5.1.1. Easier said than done, of course. May fall into "wrong v. wrong" dilemma
category?
5.1.2. Agree 100% w/ "easier said than done"; that's what makes it a dilemma
but question is, ex post facto, how to live w/self and accept the moral
necessity of crossing moral lines… perhaps by weighing alternatively the
costs of inaction against the cost of action.
5.1.3. Right. Which gets into realm of ethical decision-making principles (endsbased, rule-based, etc).
5.2. Here's a question -does ethics training make it harder or easier for combattants to
live with their actions
5.2.1. Good question. Ignorance is bliss v. having the tools to analyze
5.2.2. and that, of course, is the inherent riddle represented by the Tree of
Knowledge in the Garden of Eden.
5.3. On the 'living w your actions' Q, my students want to reevaluate their actions in
light of class
5.3.1. More to that, I was wondering about teaching them before vs after
deployment. Does pre-deployment create hesitation? Or lead to better
decision making?
5.3.1.1.
I get mid-career Marines, so hard for me to tell. Still, we don't
want hesitation; neither want trigger happy. I teach ability to shorten
the reflection time; that reduces hesitation while improving decision
making.
5.3.2. That's exactly what I was thinking. This sort of drill reduces hesitation—
because it improves instinctual responses to ambiguous situations or
dilemmas. Like all other types of training, for that matter.
5.3.3. Exactly. Train like you fight, muscle memory, pick a metaphor. It
becomes reflexive w/o being reactive.
6. Marine Capt. @TKudo "I killed people in Afghanistan. Was I right or wrong?"
http://wapo.st/V4nalW We discussed this issue today. If you'd like, we can explore
in #METC when we cover moral reasoning.
6.1. .others take an equally valid humanistic view. How does this play in morality?
POV matters...
6.2. If you Kill even socially acceptably, Why ask others if you did right? or for
validation?
6.2.1. It's human nature to seek validation for actions that seem to run counter to
values. Taking life is a big one. This is not something we do well in the US.
7. We're talking moral dilemmas. Where do we start tonight? Truth vs loyalty?
7.1. Where can you have a conversation about the impact on conflict that pushing
morals onto the situation has?
7.2. Do you mean how moralizing can influence conflict?
7.2.1. Yes, absolutely!
8. Walzer's Dirty Hands argument. “a particular act of government (in a political party
or in the state) may be exactly the right thing to do in utilitarian terms [brings the best
result for the most people] and yet leave the man who does it guilty of a moral
wrong.” Is this inevitable in political life? Key for 'dirty hands' is that the act
remains immoral, regardless of its necessity or positive result. You don't get off the
hook. We'd like to convince ourselves that since our backs were against a wall, or the
consequences were good, that makes the act moral. No
8.1. I'd say Walzer thinks you DO get off the hook--but only if the results were
favorable, and if you didn't go TOO far.
8.1.1. Does he say you might try people (after the fact) or have other sorts of
sanctions? My book is at the office:(
8.1.2. Walzer agrees with Churchill's "shaming" of Arthur Harris for British
bombing raids Churchill ordered...
8.2. But by "off the hook," he means from external punishment only. You should still
FEEL bad about getting your hands dirty.
8.2.1. we overlook the personal too often; cynically believing public atonement /
absolution is all that's necessary
8.2.2. That's why it's interesting to note Walzer's criticism of what democracy
has done to war
8.2.3. The 'off the hook' is Machiavellian approach: public chooses to focus on
good outcome, not immoral act.
8.3. Clausewitz has some good points on ethics. What do you mean by JUW?
8.3.1. Sorry, this was big in my diss. Essentially, Walzer moves from
"politics=dirty hands" to "willingness to dirty=must punish!" In other words,
Walzer moves from "let's understand need to sacrifice morality" to "let's
blame those willing to sacrifice"
8.3.2. In other words, Walzer moves from "let's understand need to sacrifice
morality" to "let's blame those willing to sacrifice"
8.3.3. I think Walzer's point is more like "let's [be ready to] blame those willing
to sacrifice [if they go too far]"
8.3.4. That's how he starts... But "we must look for people who are not good, and
use them, and dishonor them" (325) is how he ends
8.3.5. Ah. I don't have the book, just the shorter article
8.3.5.1.
If you're referring to "Political Action" I think Walzer changes his
mind in JUW (Just and Unjust Wars) about executioner having to kill
us all...
8.3.5.2.
So his later position is that people with "dirty hands" must pay an
external penalty, even if good resulted?
8.3.5.3.
Yes, which was what led to the fascinating essays by Lichtenberg,
Ryan, Zupan in "Just and Unjust Warriors" (OUP, 2010)
8.3.6. 'Feeling bad' is the Weberian approach. Public doesn't know or sanction,
so person's guilt only way for accountability.
8.3.7. It's also the Camus approach, when he gets down practical
implementation. He wants us to "imagine" a punishment, but since there is
no real way to enforce it, the limits are set by public political action, BUT
only in the cases of failure or wanton excess (in doing bad to do good).
8.3.8. For Camus, punishment is literal -- the assassins are hanged (or in Just
&Unjust Wars, Arthur Harris is shunned).
8.3.8.1.
For Camus, yes. For Walzer-on-Camus, in theory but not in
practice. Right? (at least in PA article, not JUW book)
8.3.8.2.
Walzer says he finds Camus most compelling 'cuz it gives some
real mechanism for public accountability; others don't.
8.3.8.3.
Right. And that accountability kicks in if/when 1) there is
excessive degree of doing bad, or 2) the gambit fails. Correct?
8.3.8.4.
Got it! He's talking about excessive cruelty, not badness. Can do
bad w/o being cruel
8.3.8.5.
(Not just accountability, but it forces public to reflect upon leaders'
actions and become politically active.)
8.3.8.5.1.
Camus goes a step further; immorality is punished
existentially (by death) which removes the self/society duality. so
the actor pays the debt for the transgressing both the social AND
his/her individual moral code.
8.3.8.5.1.1.
Not so in all of his works. The Stranger shows
punishment can also be self-inflicted thu ex. false perception
of self.
8.3.8.5.1.2.
Again, we're talking about the Just Assassins.
8.3.8.5.1.3.
(obviously a topic that concerned him (Camus)
greatly, though, and revisited continually... )
8.3.8.5.1.4.
I have not read tht bk. thgh I hv read others. my BA
was for a dbl mjr in Phil. and Psych.
http://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2
Fwww%2Eijcsmr%2Eorg%2Fvol1issue3%2Ehtml&urlhash
=gFUk&trk=prof-publication-title-link …
8.3.8.5.2.
we have to keep in mind that ethics are layered- there are
your personal code, social, cultural, political, and professional as
well as the universal. If I recall The Rebel, the protagonists were
well aware of their personal debt- to themselves- for their acts.
We overlook the personal too often; cynically believing public
atonement / absolution is all that's necessary
8.3.8.5.3.
That's why it's interesting to note Walzer's criticism of what
democracy has done to war
8.3.8.6.
I read it as Walzer using "cruelty" as just one example of "degrees"
of dirty hands more generally.
8.3.8.7.
Hard part is impossible to know any of it ahead of the fact. But I
could be over-analyzing.
8.3.8.7.1.
But isn't that precisely the problem? And perhaps why
Walzer drops all but Machiavelli by the time of JUW
8.3.8.8.
Hmm, I read it differently. Politician does bad not cuz wants to,
but cuz feels has to. 'Excessive' makes discretionary. Not just
accountability, but it forces the public to reflect upon the actions of
leaders and to become politically active. Can be incredibly bad if for
the public good; any more cruelty than needed makes him bad to begin
w. Dastardly, not DH.... Hard part is impossible to know any of it ahead
of the fact. But I could be over-analyzing.
8.3.8.9.
Not over-analyzing. I agree that "excessive" is a post-facto
determination. History is written by the winners.
8.3.8.10. But isn't that precisely the problem? And perhaps why Walzer
drops all but Machiavelli by the time of JUW
8.3.9. If you're referring to "Political Action" I think Walzer changes his mind in
JUW about executioner having to kill us all...
8.4. So of the 3 theories in Dirty Hands, which philosophy is most prevalent in
today's politics? Consequence of such views?
8.5. So in 'dirty hands', ends do not justify the means, correct?
8.5.1. He IDs 3 approaches. So long as dirty hands results in good, the public
ignores (Machiavelli), but is still immoral. In 2nd version (Weber), is
immoral, but not public accountability. Person suffers guilt / carries
immorality alone. In 3rd version (Camus) Public does punish, and this
atones the immorality of the action. So immoral in all cases, just different
perspectives and whether and how might atone for immorality.
8.5.2. Thanks for the clarification. I need to think about these a bit.
8.5.3. I believe the key to understanding the logic for Walzer is all about what he
means by "overriding"
8.5.4. I'll confess that reading Walzer usually makes my head hurt. And not even
a beer for help due to GO1.
8.5.5. Too bad; I love him!
8.5.6. I find Walzer FAR preferable to his followers, especially since he was
willing to read Hegel, Camus, Sartre, Gray
8.5.7. I suppose I should clarify; he does make me have to think.
8.5.8. Fair assessment.
8.6. Did someone mention Camus?
8.6.1. Walzer draws one of his dirty hands scenarios from the Just Assassins by
Camus.
8.7. OK - where is the baseline premise of the #METC conversation? Because ethics
is domain specific so I’m not following the logic. Military Ethics can mean
something very different than Ethics in the Military to me. So I’m looking for
clarity in your thesis for the ongoing #METC discussion.
8.7.1. How do you differentiate the two?
8.7.2. So when someone says Military Ethics to me it, by definition, includes
things that still wouldn’t be ethical in other domains.
8.7.3. Have you seen the blog posts? They provide some of the foundational
contexts and link to some of the readings.
8.7.4. No, that’s more-or-less what I’m asking - where do I get the
backgrounder? A Twitter search on the hashtag yielded confusion.
8.7.5. Yeah, it's a little jumbled! Most recent post at top: http://bit.ly/HVGmgL
8.7.6. OK - I can already tell I don’t like this Kidder - at least not in military
context. I’m reading and have YouTube tabs open now.
8.7.7. Interesting. Our Marines tend to really like him -- he's clear and helps
them conceptualize issues in new ways.
8.7.8. Like Kidder? Well, yeah, I think it gives a framework to ignore selfpreservation & fear under headings of loyalty, community, ..
8.7.9. Only if prioritize loyalty & community to the exclusion of truth & indiv.
Kidder's clear not universally binary.
8.7.10. I’ve got the fray of tabs open to read up a bit - we’ll see what I understand
afterward.
8.8. Practical application question: Do soldiers have "dirty hands" for killing in war,
regardless of whether public says it's justified?
8.8.1. In terms of the traditional category of "right intention" it is possible, but
there "justified" is only up to God.
8.8.2. In Walzer's view, "justified" is a utilitarian calculation, correct?
8.8.3. I think in JUW that's actually what he's trying to move us away from with
his criticisms of the "legalist paradigm." Walzer criticizes e.g. appeasement
by putting the value-confirming struggle over and above the "better part of
wisdom" (71)
8.9. "I don't know what you mean here." Reforms meant to engender ethical attitudes
and behaviours result in less than/opposite!
8.9.1. Ah. I wonder if part of this comes down to perspective; #METC's focused
on individual decisionmaking, not institutional level.
8.9.2. Though, aren't Institutions made up of individuals and those at top make
the decisions and set ethics for Institutions?
8.9.3. Yes and no, as I'm sure you know.
8.9.4. A bit of a Straw-man logical fallacy, Doc! I don't know it as you suggest
or might like. Moreover, how can that be?
8.9.5. Easy. Mid-career professionals are only able to effect so much. It's
ridiculous to think they're responsible for USMC or DOD.
8.9.6. For your perspective to be right, people would need Godlike power. No
one has that level of institutional control in the US.
8.9.7. Doc, are you and #METC familiar with the last speech in office of the
34th POTUS who warned his fellow Americans of exactly that?
8.9.8. So, is #METC only concerned about ethics of mid-career folks whose
attitudes are subordinate to if not shaped by their bosses' ?
8.9.9. Since it mirrors the elective I teach at the Command and Staff College,
that's exactly what #METC does. All it's ever claimed to do.
8.9.10. That's akin to #METC looking at ethics in the Military thru a soda straw.
Big risk of normalising deviance!
8.9.11. It carries the risk of preparing Marines for the ethical challenges they'll
face in the next level of command, actually. I'm pretty comfortable with
that. You certainly don't have to participate if you're not finding it useful!
8.9.12. Au contraire, Doc of #METC. Critical thinking is a professional
responsibility and meant to be challenging for those advocating it!
8.9.13. Good, I'm glad you're finding #METC useful.
8.9.14. Very useful, Doc. #METC, inter alia, is confirming thesis that overly
constrained critical thinking is a western global disease!
8.10.
I like idea of layered ethics; so tension btwn values (eg Truth v Loyalty)
competes w/ tension btwn obligations
8.11. Should leaders avoid using the term "values" without a quantifier? Term is
ambiguous, trite and sometimes dangerous.
8.11.1. What do you mean by quantifying values?
8.12.
Re-reading Huntington's views on mil ethic: sole criterion is relevance to
function and universal for officer corps. Thoughts
8.12.1. Professional ethics are functional in that they maintain the profession.
Service to client & values aren't purely functional. Serving the client &
values are functional, but also 'goods' in their own right
8.12.2. but as such, do u agree w his characterization that the mil mind or ethic is
forever always 'conservative realism' ?
8.12.3. I'll need to re-read that point, but maybe in US historical context, and
maybe better than alternative. Will check tomorrow
8.12.4. he also claims however that conservative realism explains the ideal
military mind anywhere anytime, not just US
8.12.5. thanks. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Not convinced abt
the universality of the claims
8.12.6. Sure, will look at it. Still, he's making a normative, not descriptive point
there (about universality).