Should we Support the Troops? - Philosophy Tube
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Lots of people "support the troops" even if they don't support the cause for which they fight, but is that a morally defensible position?
Politics Playlist: • POLITICS AND LAW
Subscribe! www.youtube.com...
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @PhilosopyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
Suggested Reading:
Jeff McMahan, "On the Moral Equality of Combatants," philosophy.rutg...
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: 'Show your Moves' and 'Pamgea' by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
Living in Germany, I have a somewhat different perspective on this. Publicly supporting the troops is not something that happens here. Maybe unsurprisingly, there are no big public events to celebrate veterans and even politicians commending the soldiers' efforts abroad are doing that in a very subdued way. Some celebrity speaking out in favor of the troops would be more likely to cause a public outcry than to be perceived as acting in a socially acceptable let alone expected way.
The reasons for this, I believe, are partially that German soldiers on foreign soil are still comdemned by many, no matter the cause, but more importantly it is the apparent impossibility of supporting the military without supporting militarism. Looking at other countries' Veterans Day celebrations, I cannot blame my fellow Germans for having this impression.
***** I'm not 100% sure how exactly the world's view on German nationalism changes but from what I'm gathering, there is a decrease in criticism and distrust of Germans expressing patriotism and national pride. This is definitely a notion that's mirrored internally, with national symbols like German flags and the disguised, well-mannered kind of xenophobia raising less and less eyebrows these days, at least not universally (there are of course many who remain as critical and even hostile towards German nationalism as ever).
I didn't detect much of a change in the way militarism is viewed, though, but it might just be too early for that. German pacifism is a movement that's not restricted to the political left, however, so I'd expect the development to be not at all straightforward.
im german too, when there was ...ill Keep writing in english though, the Soccer world Cup, it did seem like friendly patriotism with all the flags and i had no Problem with it. Now it seems as if afd and NPD and all sorts of Neonazis took it as an invite to Show their true Colors in the open. I was one of the last that served 9 months at the army mandatory. The public perception was really positive. In Bavaria at least, when we knocked on doors collecting Money for the Kriegsgräberfürsorge. Sometimes we took the Train home still wearing uniform, and People immediately trusted you and asked you to look after their luggage when going to the toilet and such. Public Perception seems rather positive to me. @@unvergebeneid
@@gur262 I had a problem with the flags and patriotism during the world cup for that exact reason: not because I didn't want people to enjoy football and root for their team but because some important barrier seemed to have been lost. Also, the relish in many people to be able to "finally" behave this way again was very worrying, even at the time.
As for trusting people in uniform... I think there's a difference between people distrusting the military in the abstract and still thinking that basically an official representative of the state might be a good bet for watching your bag while you're in the bathroom ;) But it would indeed be interesting to know if people outside Bavaria had the exact same experience!
@@Carl_ATHF "Keep peace and provide humanitarian aid" lol okay
@@Carl_ATHF The fundamental role of the military is not to distrubute humanitarian aid, bit rather kill people, and in germany that is an extra touchy topic because of what happenend 80 years ago. Troops may be handing out humanitarian aid as well, but there are other groups for that.
The assumption never addressed here is that troops, especially in first world countries, choose to join the military. It's way more complicated than that. The US military recruits impoverished children with no hope of college or a livable wage. And they are conditioned their whole life to believe the US is always righteous.
Also, should "support the troops" inherently mean "support their actions of war" or "support them as people, removing them from war, and getting them therapy."
The insidious thing about "support our troops" is that it is implied that not supporting the troop actions (violently enforced by higher ups with huge psychological conditioning) means not supporting the people.
Perhaps that is unique to the US, but I am disappointed with this video
The assumption that troops choose to join is explicitly addressed. He applies the model even to cases of conscription.
@@stephendunscombe Conscription is addressed in the video, not the kind of systematic indoctrination and predation that Nathan is talking about. You could try to extend the 'conscription doesn't make a difference' argument to this case, but consider that the conscript has a choice so far as they are aware (fight in the war or flee from the state that is trying to conscript them), where the people Nathan is describing do not have a meaningful choice as far as they are aware, as they have been told to think that it is a good thing for their entire lives, and their futures (and sometimes the future of people they care about such as parents) are leveraged against them.
@@royeckhardt9016 No, he specifically referred to this as well. "Just because somebody is threatening your life, doesn't mean that you are justified to murder a third party ie not the person who is threatening you". In this scenario, your life is literally on the line, and the argument is that this does not mean you are justified to take another life.
The only true escape, and scenario that wasnt discussed would be that you literally do not have the ability to do otherwise, but if you are a fan of the show his response to this would be. "Ought implies can" (-Kant) or more specifically, if the person has no other option then there can not be a moral judgement on that action. So yes, if you have no other option then you cannot have done a bad or good thing, because the alternative does not exist.
Happy American Memorial Day weekend
The act of supporting them as people and removing them from war makes them by definition not troops, so no, you can't just twist support the troops to mean supporting someone that's not a troop. It's a comforting notion that helps you not feel like you're looking down on on some poor teenager, but it does more harm than good to put that sentiment in the same verbiage as "support our troops". You're advocating more for " support our youth so they don't turn to becoming troops out of desperation " which I'm all for
I disagree on the starting assumption. The idea that troops are not responsible for their own actions is absurd.
It seems to me to be an attempt to avoid responsibility. Even as taxpayers we are to some degree responsible for war.
It's not the same. The military has an out for orders where if it could be argued that the orders are in some way illegal then the soldier is obligated to reuse to follow said orders. In the case of genocide this would violate both US and international law, not to mention rules of engagement. It's also been decided by the international criminal court that if you violate the law you can't hide behind orders unless not following them would (1) not change the outcome regardless and (2) would end in your own loss of life.
So part of the point I'd make is that, as a society, we've agreed that not all killing is equivalent. On the one end there's the intentional, malicious murder of an innocent person and on the other there's a very unfortunate accident. One of those you are definitely going to jail for and the other you might not. And there's even the one where we, as a society, have agreed that killing to protect a life is permissible.
So right away context is very important to the final answer. Why is it being done? Who started it? Under what circumstances? This all matters quite a lot in deciding both the legality and morality of killing of any kind, war being no different.
This is why a soldier that destroys a tower-block full of civilians might be said to not have done an illegal act if it was unknown that civilians were present and it was thought enemy combatants were. But it's also why a soldier loading people onto a box-car headed for a camp where rumor had it people were being killed would, at the least, have some very difficult questions to answer.
I would also reject that soldiers in any way see their position as being morally agnostic. Aside from the highly religious nature of the modern US military most soldiers serve for highly moral reasons. You may not agree with them, but they are moral.
The executioner is also a bad example because the "executioners" at Auschwitz were all found guilty of genocide where I'm pretty sure we haven't sent any of the people carry out death sentences in the US to jail, even the ones who it was later found had killed someone innocent.
Most of the time the people who do these sorts of things, soldiers, executioners, cops, firemen, whatever... They have to believe that the system itself is just, or at least trying to be, and that they serve a moral good.
Now, you may rightly point out that the Nazis also thought they were in the moral right and we've all mostly agreed they were not. I'd point out that they were largely held accountable for their crimes and that even modern-day Nazis espousing similar viewpoints are pretty strongly condemned by the wider populace. Society decides who was right in each situation. This is why the Nazis were hanged/shot/etc and why most other soldiers aren't, regardless of whether or not they were on the winning side.
It's a choice to join the army rather than any other profession, exempting conscription.
And you're morally culpable for your choices and actions.
Human Resources I agree that troops are entirely responsible for their own actions, and their responsibility begins at recruitment. This is why militaries provide avenues for conscientious objection.
Personal consequence for their action however are nil to the extent that it is consistent with their orders from the brass and the Geneva Convention
true
I wonder if your views have evolved since you made this video. Your position on the military seems at odds with your current views on Neoliberalism, at least in practice.
Happy American Memorial Day weekend
I would be interested in a Just War episode.
Yes. Maybe Olly and Natalie could do a group chat with Chelsea Manning. :)
To get started on that, I think we need to break down the components of a war. Ultimately, there are three components. First is the causus belli. Next there is the war conduct, and finally there is the peace deal. For a war to be just, all three have to be superior in moral quality to the opponents. Lets do something controversial and look at the american civil war.
In terms of causus belli, the union has a massive moral advantage. The Confederacy was explicitly fighting to preserve slavery, and the Union didn't even plan on taking it away until the Confederacy secceded. In terms of conduct, it's really difficult to say, but a good metric is POWs. I would say slight advantage to the Union in this regard because the Union had a lower POW mortality rate. Also, the Confederacy used slave labor to fund the war effort, and the Union freed lots of slaves. As for peace deal, there was reconstruction. Initially, African Americans gained a lot of rights. Then, they were taken away by Wilson. Probably overall better than what might have happened if the Confederacy won(annexing Cuba and parts of Mexico for more slaves, keeping slaves for a lot longer). While not perfect, the union was fighting an overall just war.
"The moral blame is multiplied, not diluted".
I think that's the hole point in lots of moral topics.
+aspie96 Accurate.
Yes like in politics, the police and most organisations. That's one of the major contributors to a lot of problems in our western societies imo
Lookin' good in uniform, Ollie!
I think "I was just following orders" is slightly larger moral thicket than was addressed - there has not been a universal ruling on how to address it as a defense in military tribunals, and even for the Nazi soldiers who unsuccessfully tried to use it to be acquitted of all charges at Nuremburg, their sentences *were* often reduced as a result.
Also, I think there's more complexity in military actions than total transparency & prior knowledge, i.e. "if someone's ordered to do something bad and does it." It's totally feasible that soldiers could attack a target without knowing its nature ahead of time & having the chance to decide the morality of attacking it.
***** I was only citing Nuremberg because it was one of the most paradigmatic examples of the "just following orders" defense. The punishment for not following orders might range from imprisonment to dishonorable discharge to death to death & execution of your family, but odds & extent of punishment aren't the only things that bear consideration when someone performs an immoral act dictated by a chain of command.
Besides, in the burglar analogy, disobeying a mob boss certainly might result in death.
THUNK There is the eternal issue of people's psychological deference to authority figures (I'd love to hear Ollie's thoughts on the Milgram experiments) I personally think that this falls under the category of ought-implies-can. is it reasonable to assume that troops by and large are capable of disobeying orders from their superiors? especially when taking into account the moral ambiguity of the conflict they are already in, and the peer pressure of the their fellow troops and the public back home?
I think you touch on an interesting point at the end of your post: does a lack of knowledge about the moral or immoral nature of an action effect whether or not the action is still immoral? (or more specifically if the person has committed an immoral act.) An example might be if you found $20 under a rock is it wrong to take it? If you knew someone hid $20 under a rock is it wrong to take it? This ties responsibility for the action to awareness (possibly) but with full awareness can this situation be immoral and the individual not have responsibility for its immorality? Can morality be a spectrum severity rather than a binary yes or no.
Happy American Memorial Day weekend
What I hate about the military is when they say “I have a duty to my country”
Where is the duty to the world and peace?
The argument: "If you want peace, prepare for war" is EXTREMELY appealing to layman. Most militaries are not currently, or within last 20 years, been part of "The War". Even though I should know better, the argument sometimes appeals to me because from what I can see, world sucks and I'm cynical. In Finland we have mandatory conscription and you can choose to take military or civic wartime task. I picked proudly the military route in hopes that I would be one of many that make my country as unappealing target as possible for the imaginary enemy.
You have a duty to your country the world is second that is a fact
@@highcouncil1302 How is that a fact you complete shithead
I do have mixed feelings about our lionization of military and police forces above other life-threatening professions (construction, mining, electricians, doctors in disease-ridden areas) and other professions that help people (attorneys, firefighting, education, social workers, doctors, Red Cross medics). It feels like we glorify violent work disproportionately, forgetting that these people are *paid* just like anyone else.
Many people enter the military as a solid source of income, which is probably why you don't see that many rich kids in the Navy. Many also might enter it (or police work) for the wrong reasons-glorified professions beget gloryseekers. No politician will dare to say anything negative about our troops, or our police, without quick caveats. It has made it very difficult to voice criticism. They are heroes in our culture's eyes, but do they deserve that reverence?
I'd appreciate it if you could do a video more closely examining these elements. They bother me.
The sole reason we glorify these professions is that the danger inherent in them stems from humans. It doesn't originate in the nature of disease, or in heavy objects and mischance, or machinery that can backfire and crush you. In a war, you are threatened by other humans. We are smarter than other animals, and more dangerous. We are malicious, where mischance is unfortunate. We are actively trying to kill each other in war, unlike diseases. Firefighting receives glory for the same reason, the clear and obvious danger of the most violent and destructive natural force is being braved, so we give them glory. Soldiers face the ingenuity and destructiveness of their fellow man and so we feel they deserve glory.
While that may be true for our soldiers (and I'm not convinced-I think it more likely we glorify the violence, not the increase in challenge), bear in mind that we treat our cops the same way, and they do *not* have the most dangerous profession in America. In fact, it's been getting safer for decades, regardless of what that orange running for president thinks, and comes well behind jobs like "electric worker" and "trucker".
I mean, there is a weird amount of media glorifying truckers, in all fairness, but I'm pretty sure that's just marketed to the truckers themselves. :P
@@HenryVictorEccleston "The most violent and destructive natural force" That's certainly debatable. Oceans, storms, etc, seem more dangerous depending on the context. Americans don't honour fishermen for facing the might and power of the water and the risk of drowing.
Happy American Memorial Day weekend
I have a sort of moderate view when it comes to the responsibility of soldiers to act morally. On one hand, I agree that "I was just following orders" is not an absolute defense for immoral behavior. I agree that, in certain circumstances, the moral responsibility may be to disobey morally unconscionable orders. However, where that starts to break down for me is the idea of a soldier who is, themself, under extreme duress, including the threat of death, to carry out their orders. If that soldier sees no way to survive except by following orders, if they see no opportunity to desert, defect, or otherwise escape this dilemma, then it seems that we have two possible positions:
1. The soldier is incapable of making a moral choice, as choice has been stripped from them. "Ought implies can" enters here, and the soldier cannot be blamed for that which they were forced, practically at gunpoint, to do.
or
2. The soldier has a moral _duty to die_ rather than carry out an immoral order.
Personally, I lean more towards position #1. I have never been in a life-or-death situation, but I would be very reluctant to ascribe total moral agency to someone being threatened with death. Someone forced to commit murder is someone I would probably see as a victim, themself, rather than merely as a villain. That said, there are some people who, even in extreme positions, may be willing to die rather than be used as an agent of evil, and I do think that there is something admirable about that, so while I might commend such self-sacrifice, I would not consider it morally obligatory, but rather supererogatory.
This is such a good reply.. and I'm sad to see it was posted a week ago and, therefore, won't be covered by Olly in the next video. XD
@@corneliaxaos2745
Thanks so much! It's cool to see other folks going over the old videos! :)
@@agiar2000 I'm actually slowly binging his entire channel. I'm late to the game, but I'm enjoying the recaps! :)
Missed the chance to call this episode *What is it good for?"
So this may be a necropost, but there's actually a really interesting (and relevant) history to the phrase "support the troops" that sheds some light on what was meant by it. In the US, during the Vietnam War (1967-76), there was tremendous public opposition to the war, which often manifested in anger towards returning soldiers. Rather than ticker-tape parades, they would have people often throwing things at them, faced substantial discrimination in things like housing, employment, and access to medical care (enough so that veteran status is today a protected category in the US!), had substantial difficulty in accessing support systems that had been designed for veterans of prior wars, and generally were blamed by the public. What made this even worse is that this war happened _prior_ to America's shift to an all-volunteer force -- a large number of these soldiers were _draftees,_ forced to fight against their will.
When the US entered its next significant war in 1991 (the First Gulf War), there was quite a lot of public disagreement about whether the war itself was a good idea, but there was a fairly strong public consensus that the decisions of the last time, to blame (and harm) the individual troops over one's anger about the political decision, were profoundly wrong. The phrase "support the troops" emerged at this period (often with a yellow ribbon symbol that you still occasionally see), to indicate the message that no matter one's opinion on the war, one should treat individual soldiers as individuals and with respect.
In the post-9/11 era, that phrase got pulled out again, but this time with a more propagandistic bent, tied to the general sense that anyone who didn't support the war _effort_ was being anti-American. This worked out during the very first phase (the invasion of Afghanistan), but when it turned to a re-invasion of Iraq, which seemed pretty specious even at the time, it got a lot less traction. This is where the expression split up a bit, still being used in its original sense by most of the public, but starting to be used as a cudgel of "support the war!!" by (some) partisans of Bush II. (At this point, you see a stars-and-stripes ribbon start to emerge instead of a yellow one. The yellow one is a traditional American symbol of waiting for a loved one to return from the wars.)
I think that the twenty years since then have seen even more mutations of the phrase, all of which means that it's really important to dissect exactly what someone _means_ by "support the troops" before responding to it.
No, we shouldn't support the troops, them signing up in mass numbers is what gives governement the power to start an unjust war in the first place, so not only are they murders but also help cause the conflict.
People who think all soldiers in a battle are equal are basically saying that IS jihadists deserve equal respect because there are soldiers to...
All soldiers deserve the respect afforded to all soldiers for their bravery and dedication to their cause (whatsoever the cause may be). If they are also good people by our standard, then they deserve even more respect. If their cause is disgusting to us, then we are naturally disgusted by them. But that does not take away from the inherent courage, skill, and value of risking your life and person for a cause or a people.
+HenryVictorEccleston So you respect IS members because the have the courage to murder people?
+Michel van der Molen I respect them insofar as they are soldiers. I despise their acts, consider their cause to be absurd and sickening, and loathe them as people. My respect for their profession, however, still applies to them. Just like I still respect police officers who shoot innocents out of bigotry, while I also hate them as people and would hold them up as disgraces to their uniform. My respect for soldiers extends to my enemies, even as I hate them as my enemies.
+HenryVictorEccleston That makes no sense to me whatsoever. What about mercenaries? And what about assassins or regular serial killers, do you respect them for having the courage to take lives? Is killing because an army employs you really different from killing for self interest? If you kill you're a murderer but if a group of people comes together, calls itself an army and asks you to kill, it is somehow something that deserves respect? Not to me it doesn't...
💞
In regards to 'Conscription', I feel that we must take into consideration the consequences of failing to comply with your being conscripted into the military; incarceration and the social consequences.
To answer the question directly; I believe that we shouldn't support the actions of which troops take part in, however, the support and encouragement of troops as people and their re-integration into society.
We should support the troops in the short term. People with ptsd deserve treatment. However, in the long run, we should just stop going to war. Almost all wars can be prevented.
Resisting your oppressor instead of killing a third party.
Palpatine : "It's treason then...."
In basic training I met a lot of people. Take it from me, these people absolutely need your support. Not for a war or anything. They just need help.
Personally, I differentiate between supporting the troops, as a collective term, and supporting the individuals, whether they be war heroes or people we know personally. In regards to the latter, this allows us to weigh up each situation morally: whereas collectively an ethical analysis of warfare itself would be too complex, focussing on the individual would allow us to answer questions such as in the other comments which may cause dilemmas in the burglary illustration (Davi Snick's comment for example).
Conscientious objectors, for example, who assist in the war effort in non-violent roles (e.g. First aid) - is there mere assistance (assuming the war is unjust) considered morally wrong? Especially if they save the lives of people who would go on to kill? An individual assessment would allow us to say, "hey, they're doing good considering the alternatives".
On another note, just wars would be a brilliant topic. I know this is an ethical dilemma, but historiographically, the war will almost always be constructed historically as just by the winning side, and usually the winners write the prominent history. George Orwell wrote an interesting article on this in the Tribune in 1944: right after WWII. We like to think of ourselves as the good guys in wars...but truth be told I've been to Vietnam and Gallipoli and I prefer their version of history. I have yet to find a justified war once multiple historical perspectives have been examined.
And finally, cloning please! I find GM and Eugenics absolutely fascinating.
I disagree that an ethical analysis of warfare as a whole is too big to tackle; the field of "Peace War and Defense" examines this throughout history with various philosophical backings
Wow so much has changed from these old videos.... like Google plus was a thing that existed.
For some reason this dilemma also reminds me of the debate before the Sicilian expedition, described in the sixth book of Thucydides' history, which we studied at school (about 15 years ago or so). There Nicias argues strongly against the Athenian expedition against Syracuse; but once the expedition was affirmed by the popular assembly, he made recommendations about optimally supplying the expedition despite the fact that he thought it was an unnecessary war; he was even selected as a general at it.
The expedition was disastrous, however he did lead it, despite his objections.
Aah, the memories... :p
Ive been checking out your channel ollie; I really like your talks. Good arguments and good insights. You gained another sub :)
The problem I have with McMann is that their theory takes the example of burglar (individual act to which we can attribute blame or fault and then punishment) and applies it to a war (a general set of acts in response to each other). The example doesn't translate.
I also want to know what you mean by supporting the troops. Does it mean just hoping they don't die on the battle field, does it mean buying war bonds, or is actively participating in the war effort in order to literally support the troops? To what level should we support our troops?
There is also the question of what the troops signed up for when they joined the army. They agreed to follow orders, knowing full well what the army could go out and do. They have a moral obligation to follow orders (including the small killings) that will lead to a greater goal (like overthrowing a tyrant). Regardless of the justness of the war they fight in, they made a commitment to suspend their own moral judgement and only do as they are told. This makes me a bit torn between absolving them since they cannot use their moral judgement, and cursing them because they chose to give it up in order to go along with what they knew would include orders such as killing.
But I'm starting to wonder wether someone who made the choice to suspend their moral judgement so they could go and kill on order really deserves support, whatever goal towards which they follow orders.
Ditto on "I want to know what you mean by "supporting the troops." I wasn't sure what exactly it referred to, and my stance on the matter would certainly change depending on the definition of it.
What the hell was up with that intro? I've got no problem with saying veterans deserve our compassion and resources after the ordeal they've been through, but you don't think "utmost respect" and "defending my freedom" is a little overboard? How are the troops defending your freedom if you seem to be aware that the war isn't even just? There's just so much of a bullshit taboo on this subject, that even when the whole point of the video is to question these ideas, you still seem to compulsively assure the audience that you think soldiers are heroes. The soldiers aren't heroes; they're victims. And the American Meat Grinder is going to keep churning out victims until we stop acting like being fed to the war machine is noble.
Even if troops aren't always actively killing, a lot of the day-to-day non-murder activities are done to allow or support killing, and I can't imagine a moral framework that lets you separate the purpose from the action in a way that exonerates that.
I think an updated version of this video would be interesting
This is the best argument for war I've ever personally heard. You explain these positions very well.
Assuming the war is just -_-
It doesnt matter if you are in a war or not, all the same moral principles hold true. Being in a war doesnt free you from your moral responsibilities. In the same way as "being drunk" and doing something morally bad is still bad. Sometimes "murder" might be justified when defending one self or someone else. To avoid being forced into situations where you have to kill people one could avoid taking part in war(s). If you get forced into a situation where you have to kill people then your guilt is (probably) less. "ought imples can" could be used here to deduce that since if you cannot choose to "not kill somebody" then your guilt is less since you could not choose otherwise. I whould personally refrain from using the term "supporting the troops" since there are always people on both sides of a conflict. Its better to say that you support your son, daughter, uncle, relative, friend etc which is going into war.
This comment deserves so many more likes. But it won't get it because this channel is full of biased and indoctrinated American nationalists who can't fathom the concept that their troops have already killed millions of innocents over the last few decades and every single one of those wars were an act of aggression from the US as the opponents never started it. Troops who killed innocents are criminals and if you support such troops you are supporting criminals.
Those that plan do not kill and those that kill do not plan. Leaving everyone feeling free of responsibility. :(
As a former member of the military and being Infantry this one kind of close hits to home. I will try to be brief. There is a rule where you can refuse to follow an order if it is illicit and if the superior insists you then should comply "under protest". Which means as long as every person in your society raises the children with impeccable moral standards you would never have to worry if you should support the troops since they would always make the "right" decision. Since in reality this is not the case you could just support a troop someone you know will always do the right thing like a brother/sister, mother/father, or cousin something of that sort. Also the burglar analogy assumes that the burger is not doing the act out of desperation. What if the burglar was their for a loaf of bread and some milk because he couldn't afford to feed his family?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the burglar scenario doesn't really answer the question, because it says that we should support the side that is morally right, but if we knew what was morally right in the war, surely this would be a non issue since we would be supporting the side that was fighting justly. and if the question becomes a case by case basis/ encounter by encounter basis, then surely both sides would have reason to believe they were the homeowner in some encounters and the burglar in others.
and if the issue is whether I as a civilian sitting at home should only support the troops if they are fighting the "just side" of the war, the burglar scenario just raises more questions:
take the American involvement in Vietnam, maybe I support America fighting communism and believe the USA's cause to be a just one, but I disagree with military abuse of civilians, chemical warfare and the slightly racist and imperialistic overtones of the war, and as result there are large aspects of the American side of the war I consider to be unjust as well, so should I support the American GI's or the Vietcong?
similarly I may be against american involvement in Afghanistan out of pacifism, or the belief that it wasn't a situation america should be involved in or any number of other very legitimate reasons, but in a comparison between the Taliban (and Taliban backed militant groups) and the Coalition forces occupying the country, I think I can safely say without sounding like too much of a pro-America/pro-Western nut, that the Coalition forces have the moral high ground (even if we were only measuring fighting tactics, i.e. the western forces have strict policies against civilian casualties), so should I still support them even though I disagree with their reasons
So assuming we could objectively say that a war as a whole was just or unjust, or at least one side was just and the other was unjust (I don't personally think you can do that in any real world setting by simple virtue of how complicated international politics is) what about a war where both sides are equally injust (world war I is a great example), do the troops have equally rights morally to kill each other then?
Personally, I have never supported troops. I feel the only reason I potentially could is because of some sort of cultural obligation
I think you are misunderstanding what a soldier is. A soldier is a person who has, either voluntarily or due to being conscripted, given up their right to refuse to follow an order. A soldier can neither refuse to continue being a soldier, at least for a specific term, or legally refuse to do what he is told (he can, however, be held responsible for following an order, which is a horrifying contradiction). If you wish to make the argument that one should never surrender the right to refuse, even under penalty of imprisonment or death, you can make that argument. This of course would require you to say that a person should never participate in a just war, either. Or, you can choose to acknowledge that soldiers have no right to choose which wars they participate in. This would of course violate your rule that the morally responsible must have had another option. The soldier ceases to have such options when he becomes a soldier.
+sean rodgers TI think that the central problem with what you're saying is that you equivocate on the word "can." Whenever you say that a soldier cannot do x, it could be rewritten as a soldier cannot legally do x (ie a soldier cannot legally disobey an order,) but you later use that legal sense to argue that a soldier literally has no option to disobey an order. You indirectly reference Kant's 'ought implies can' principle and defend soldiers by saying they cannot do anything other than follow orders, but Kant wasn't talking about can in a legal sense, and soldiers clearly can disobey orders. As a matter of fact, there is a tremendous number of examples where soldiers have disobeyed orders, so we know it isn't impossible. Even if you do choose to give up your right to make decisions, it does not logically follow that you are not morally responsible for your actions because you still have an ability to choose otherwise.
I see what you're saying. There is some conflict with my word choice. I use the words "given up the right to refuse" then I later use the words "legally refuse." It's not just a matter of legality though. They agreed of their own free will to follow orders. Even if conscripted, they could have chosen prison. Even if threatened with death, they could choose death. In many cases, like the final days of Nazi Germany, choosing death might be the only moral option. You can't claim that a person should surrender his right to choose and then make a bunch of choices about whether or not he should live up to that obligation. He swore to follow orders. Not following orders is therefor immoral. The soldier clearly will never be able to say with certainty that he will never be given an order that is immoral. That means that the better choice would be to never be a soldier. Perhaps I did go too far in implying there was no other option. But the maker of the video still has a contradiction to deal with.
Another aspect of this is soldiers often have no idea what is at stake when they are given orders. They are small cogs in a huge machine. A group of twenty soldiers that refuses to put themselves in serious danger could be completely unaware that their refusal to accept some risk will result in the deaths of hundreds of others. When you ask soldiers to weigh the consequences of their actions before they follow orders, they will often be completely unable to make accurate decisions. If a soldier is asked to launch a rocket into a house with one innocent child in it, he could have no idea that the house also has a suicide bomber with a nuclear device inside. Maybe his senior officer, miles away by a radio, doesn't have time to tell him. Maybe he simply thinks he doesn't have to tell him. The soldier looks in the window, sees the kid, doesn't fire the rocket. The man detonates the bomb, kills himself, the child, the soldier, the soldiers platoon mates (who might be the only people on the planet he would fire a rocket at a child to save) and a huge number of other people.
I can't see any way out of this other than refusing under any circumstances to become a soldier. Simply coming up with a definitive list of specific actions they can never perform (shoot a kid, attack a hospital, fire a fifty caliber weapon at a human, etc.) is simpler. It can be made clear that their duty to follow orders ends when the list is controverted. Asking them to deliberate over complex moral issues before they follow an order is absurd.
If an order is unlawful or blatantly immoral the soldier has an obligation to not obey it. If I'm in Iraq and my lieutenant tells me to shoot a little kid for no reason I can lawfully refuse that order so it isn't really the case that a soldier always has to follow the rules no matter what.
He doesn't always have to follow the rules no matter what. That isn't what I said. Try reading the entire thread before you comment.
Which is why I think joining the military is the impactful decision here. I want to reserve my right to my own morals.
It’s 2020 and I’m going back in time to watch his early videos, he’s babey :D Ahaha
On a related note: the HAMBURGLER ‘S murder at the hands of Grimace was totally moral and permissible.
Mayor McCheese’s corruption MUST be punished
The intro used to be so meme-y
i will never support any soldier. is you want peace in this world, don't go to war. simple as that.
***** war isn't just two armies fighting each other, war could be the embargo itself. I understand that my philosophy is utopian, but if human beings decided to work together instead of fight, there would be peace. But we humans have this thing called wealth, and wherever there is wealth, there is war.
I should have written my post clearer.
Glad there were not a lot of people like you when the Nazis were invading Europe.
Ryan -.- the nazis posed no threat to any nation outside france and russia
+WarWolf x26 are u for real?
***** are u seriously wishing for another war?
I will make the argument that we should support all humans, regardless of whether or not we judge an individual to be immoral (e.g., a murderer). It is a dangerous precedent to find it just to not support people based on classifications. This paves the way for oppression. I'm not saying that we should let murders walk free among us, but even a murderer deserves for be supported - treated humanely. The challenge we face as a society though is how do we handle when countries/groups do start wars/conflicts. Even in situations where one side is clearly immoral and the other side is only defending, the offensive side may have individuals that are only defending themselves. How do we justly process the hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people during or after the war to ensure each individual is justly treated. I don't know that we have such a system.
I think you missed something. The reason we often don't directly put responsibility on an individual soldier is because we hold that, in order for a military to be effective, those who become soldiers seize to be moral agents. They ought not to have moral autonomy, and as such can't carry blame. To get around this, we either have to conceive of a way for a military force to be effective while each soldier makes their own moral decisions, or we have to ask whether it's morally permissible to have an effective military in the first place
I believe that in order to support the troops we need to be informed about the decisions being made by our representative government. The individualized choices by troops out on the field are moral decisions made by individual and their commanders which should be weighed separately despite the cause for war being necessary. So that question is broad to be answered and needs more specification. I think this path takes us in to another interesting question: if war is morally correct? and under what circumstance? At the present time it is difficult to say if we should support the troops especially when we have a government that hides so many factors of war from the individuals that elected them. Which takes in to question the whole concept of democracy? Secrecy in government? And most important a representative form of Democracy? At this time should we support the troops? The bottom line is that we have to support the troops. Threw out history this has been a planet of war and to maintain freedom war is a necessary evil.
Preach.
There are two related, but distinct questions here; (1) should people in the military obey orders even when fighting what they might consider an unjust war? (2) Should a civilian support the troops even when they are not fighting a just war, according to her opinion?
(1) is a scenario where there is a contradiction between two general moral principles, namely the principle that a militaryperson has promised to obey the orders of her superiors and the fact that she is commanded to do something immoral. The way to resolve that would be similar to the way you would resolve any other classical dilemma, so I so not want to answer it here to any length. Note however that if individual disagreements from soldiers are always allowed to be acted out that would possibly prevent the military from being effective. Which may be a practical consideration, but I believe it does have a moral dimension.
In any case there are two possible responses to (1):
(1a): yes
(1b): no
Now we come to (2): should non-combattants support the troops when they engage in an unjust war?
First of all, what does it mean to 'support the troops'? Is it something of a non-statement? I would rather rephrase it to "are soldiers engaging in an unjust war morally responsible for the effects of that war?"
Now we refer to the above; if a soldier is obliged to obey orders irrespective of whether these orders are moral (case 1a) then it would be contradictory to expect her to both obey and disobey. Therefore (1a) does amount to absolving the soldier from moral responsibility in these cases.
If we expect a soldier to disobey orders that are immoral (case 1b), the situation is more complex.
Since we consider individual soldiers to be moral agents in this context, it is logical to place moral responsibilities on specific agents based on how they acted and not on the entire military as a whole. So, in that sense, it seems impossible to make a moral judgement about all people working in the military.
Furthermore, a citizen of some particular state that supports the form of governance in that state and believes that the government is legitimate then must abide by the choices of the government even if she disagrees with them - and this includes the unjust wars initiated by that legitimate government and the actions of the military, given that it operates under civilian control. In other words, if the government is legitimate it doesn't have (and it probably cannot) act according to the wishes of every citizen.
So it seems that a state engaging in a truly unjust war must be accompanied by some abuse of power by the executive. In that case one may expect that every person in the military - and in fact every citizen, must object.
For the next topic I would go for the cloning of extinct animals. anmals. Animals.
There is this Story about the fight between Sartre and Camus.
Sartre was on the Sowjet side during the cold war and wanter Camus to choose whose troops to support. Camus is told to have said: "I support peace." I know this doesn't have a lot of philosophical substance and is quite basic but it is something to think about.
I honor and pity the men who fight wars, but hate the ones who send them off to die.
Yes, it is so honourable to join the US military at the height of the Iraq war to "kick some ass"/"get a four-year-college degree because what else am I supposed to do, get an education with which I could earn a decent living but that is less prestigious"?
OMG I used to be a Sea Cadet and a Royal Marines Cadet and now I'm a transwoman too XD
I believe that the burglar argument fails to consider the complexities of war. It assumes that there is always one justified party and one unjustified one. I can think of numerous examples, where both sides have lost any kind of moral high ground, if they ever posessed it. What about these wars? Consider Hitler fighting Stalin. Both were brutal dictators and both were fighting for the expansion of their terretories. Were the Soviet forces just killing the murderers? When they finally pushed into formerly German territories, they raped and killed the civilian population just like the Germans had done a few years earlier.
The Germans (on that front) were (at some points in time) fighting to defend their homeland, as were the Russians. Who's the burglar and who's the home owner?
The other situation that isn't considered is when there is one just cause but it leads to injust situations. In the American Civil War the North was fighting mainly to abolish slavery. The South was more or less fighting to preserve its slave holding way of life. So most people agree that the North had a more just cause than the South. But the individual southern private wasn't fighting to keep slavery going, he probably didn't have any slaves. The main reason for those people to fight was that their homeland was being invaded and plundered. Keeping with the analogy, the North was the burglar who invaded the South's home(-land), burn everything down and took what they wanted.
In conclusion, I don't believe that a war ever has one party that is absolutely just and one that does not. You can always find a half descent reason as to why you should be fighting. As long as you don't commit any war crimes, you're pretty much ok.
I agree
radialwellendichtrin that would be like: A burglar coming into your home, and you chasing him out with violence, going to his home and then steal his stuff.
radialwellendichtrin In the analogy of the American Civil War, correct me if I'm wrong (My history teacher will cry), but the South seceded from the USA, which would be analogous to a roommate being the burglar, stealing half of your stuff, which you shared with him prior. In that model, the North would be justified in taking back what belonged to them.
To revisit Hitler and Stalin, by my current standard, each would be justified (in being the home owner) until crossing the other's border, thus becoming the burglar in those situations.
treynaylor3 The South did indeed secede from the US. But how is that stealing half of the Norths stuff? They'd only be taking their share out of the union in order to form ther own nation (i.e. apartment). Most southern soldiers were not slave owners, those were just the rich upper class. Most of the common people who filled the ranks of the confederate army were fighting to expell the union troops from their land. The union troops were looting the people's homes and probably raped or killed a fair number of civilians. I'd say the Southerners had a decent reason for fighting.
For Hitler or Stalin to fight only until they reached would not have been an option. Each of them was intent on completely destroying the other one. If you stopped at the border, the opponent would just have regrouped and gone back to attacking.
As I started out with: the burglar analogy fails to recognize the complexities of war and oversimplifies things.
To be clear: the South wasn't stealing from the North; they were stealing from the pre-existing USA. As the USA was a preexisting thing, and the possessions of the South were shared, to a degree, it may be more accurate to say that you dorm with your significant other, and they suddenly decide to split with shared possessions, where the owner of those things is ambiguous.
During a split like this, you should both reach a decision over who gets what, and the US would be justified in thinking that the South can't just leave and take somewhat ambiguous territories over a disagreement that hadn't really been discussed.
Back to the Border, I'm not saying that's an option, I'm only saying that's where moral justification ends.
As a whole, I think the analogy can hold in general instances, but either needs more tweaking when you get more specific, or a new model.
Thanks for this. This topic has been a splinter in my ass all my life.
I personally think that even if we don't support the war we should support the troops because it is morally wrong not to support them when they may need the help. The army may be there last resort and if they may not completely agree with the war and what they are doing they may need more support so that they can see that we are not going against the only think that could help them and give them a liveable life as this may push them the edge and may make them give up on all hope they have for anything.
The entire discussion is based on the premise that there is an ultimately correct goal to which all actions are either conducive or adverse to- that things SHOULD happen in a certain way to fulfill a perceived purpose. Going into this discussion, the mode of thinking- the philosophy- that this speculation follows up should have been clarified (i.e. if an optimal existential experience is sought, then the morals one would follow would be that of existentialism)
I don't know enough about how refusing to follow an order in the military plays out to know how much responsibility should be attributed to them.
In general I support the troops, and save judgements for those making the decisions in a larger scale. I don't think I've thought about and researched the particulars to have a stance on if war can be just. I don't like the idea of using violence to solve problems, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
"Just following orders" is much more complicated. Lets draw two scenarios: one in which the soldier is aware that the action could be unjust but has no reason to believe the intent is, and one in which the soldier is well aware the action AND the intent is unjust. Addressing the first situation: orders are time sensitive and second guessing an order can have catastrophic effects on mission accomplishment and unit cohesion. Also, commander's intent is not always clear. What the general sees from above, the soldier may not see from the ground, and does not need to see because the general already saw it. All the soldier needs is to execute what he is told. So while the action may appear to have unjust portions, if he has no reason to believe the intent is unjust, he had better follow it. The second situation: yes, "just following orders" is obviously not an acceptable excuse no matter the consequences of disobedience. BUT, this would be a very special situation in which the soldier would have exceptional knowledge and a "full view."
Veering off my topic, for those saying they don't support the troops, if you pay taxes or merely live somewhere with a military, you support the troops.
I think morality is based on the conscience of an individual while the question whether we should support the troops during the war, is an ethical one. So, even if morally I think in my head that War/Killing is wrong, I can support the troops if I find the reason for war ethical. A nation is a larger entity than an individual and since we cherish democracy, as a democratic citizen we should cherish its decisions, even if we individually don't agree with it.
There have been great personalities like-Mahatma Gandhi(Boer war) and Desmond Doss(Hacksaw Ridge) who never supported violence but still made a distinguishing contribution during military conscription. The sole idea is that as an ethical person we owe it to our motherland in times of crisis, while as a moral person we owe it to humanity, to be gentle and responsible, even to our enemies. Nobody likes wars but still they are a reality.
I think the courage to fight for what you believe should be commended. But besides that i do think beliefs and other actions can be criticised
I might possibly be argued that unless you're actively hindering the troops somehow whatever else you do is supporting the troops. Even if you don't support the war they're fighting and are actively campaigning for and end to the fighting you're supporting them in that you're trying to insure they don't get killed. Or if you do nothing you're still presumably living and adopting the way of life they're defending so you're supporting what they stand for if not the troops themselves.
I do think becoming a soldier often times show virtues like bravery or caring for innocent people.
From a moral standpoint, I don't think people should be responsible for things they did under orders. The non-morally-permissible action is to originate the order, or to carry out morally permissible orders in a non-morally-permissible way. The commanding officer is responsible for the direction of the operation, therefore he should also be responsible for the morality of it.
Thank you for the video. :)
I have a question, though. What happens if a person is drafted into a war, and then refuses to fight because they believe it to be wrong? What happens to that person? And if they are put in jail, for example, does that mean there are morally unjust laws governing the soldiers?
On the other hand, that would go into a different topic, which would be "is conscription morally justified? If so, when?"
We should really have a "Just War" episode. If you do decide to make one, please reference Avatar: The Last Airbender, both the library guardian owl who claims no war is justified and the Fire Nation quote about starting a war to spread prosperity- That show is one of the best representations of the topic I've seen.
1. How do you "support" them? By having an upbeat zeal for war and a sticker?
2. Cigarettes are a great product, and I support smokers as well as tobacco farmers, but smoking is bad unless it's justified. Then it won't give you cancer.
I'm not quite sure how I can state this properly, I hope I can get my point across in my inarticulate way. So please bear with me, Olly. So, each individual person involved in any action can only be aware of so much, it is impossible for a single person to possess all the knowledge on a particular subject. Wars are large, complicated things, and thus carry a basic level of obfuscation, on top of which the practically necessary practice of covert operations can make the war's nature even more obfuscated. Often a war or operation may seem unjust to first inspection, but actually be just due to knowledge that practicality required be kept secret. The troops, then, must act in the assumption that they do not understand whether they are in an unjust or just war. They must trust their superiors to make such decisions for them, and act morally because their intent is the protection of their peoples. One can not say they act immorally in an unjust war because they can not know if their war is just or unjust. Ought implies can? Maybe someone can help me refine this argument.
Lets add a layer of questions to the morality of the actions of a soldier in war.
1) Does the soldier in question know that the war he is fighting is unjust.
2) Does the individual supporting the soldier know that the war being fought is unjust.
I take the following view: We expect soldiers not to be completely autonomous humans. They are expected to be "cogs in a war machine". This expectation is due to the fact that we see the necessity of armies of warriors to defend against those that would cause harm and we recognize that if every soldier questioned every order that he thought was contrary to his morals that that war machine would be effectively useless and unable to perform its necessary function.
The operators of this war machine are the ones responsible for its actions, not the individual pieces of the machine. Wanting to be a part of the machine is not accepting the moral responsibility of the operator. In the case of war crimes, a soldier is being order to do something that is clearly outside the bounds of "a cog in a war machine" and is expected to refuse that order.
I think the disturbing consequence of that line of thought is that it completely dehumanizes soldiers. Apart from changing them from human beings to expendable objects, it also allows them and others to act as though morality doesn't apply to them, which allows them to do otherwise reprehensible things without being held morally responsible. This, of course, is exactly what governments prefer--ruthless, efficient, disposable weapons that can be used in unjust ways and still garner support from a public that otherwise opposes the violent actions of its government.
I think every action must be judged in particular. War is a complex combination of actions so to speak ethical about war is nonsense.
I suppose my biggest problem with McMahan's argument is that soldiers as individuals don't necessarily act like the burglar in his analogy. Soldiers give up their autonomy as agents when they sign up to become soldiers. Whether they participate in disaster relief or peace-keeping or war, they don't get to decide what they do with their life, in regards to their chosen profession. And while both the burglar and the soldier are being compelled, I don't think a mafia boss is really akin to the State in this instance. The State has a lot more resources and a lot more enforceable punishments for desertion or disobeying orders.
I just have a hard time not morally supporting people who don't have complete autonomy over their actions.
I think fear is the main component, but a type of paranoid fear rather than an imminent threat. Both sides believe they are morally right (not everyone of course). In my opinion they are both morally wrong but who is to blame? Them for submitting to fear or the people who taught them too?
I think there is a larger grey area here than in might think. Let's break down the components of a war: causus belli, war conduct, and peace treaty. During a war the last part doesn't really happen so let's focus on the first two. Each side can have a moral advantage in either category. If a side has an advantage in both, they are the just side. If your soldiers are fighting a war based on a bad causus belli and using mustard gas, probably not a good idea to support the troops. If your country is a popular democracy fighting a defensive war using precision weapons that reduce civilian deaths to zero and doesn't kill any POWs, probably a good idea to support the troops.
In most cases, the good guys and the bad guys are nowhere near as clear cut. One group might fight a defensive war using mustard gas, and a other might be fighting a war of aggression and follow the rules of war to the letter.
To use the robber analogy, if someone sneaks into your house, and you torture him, you no longer have the moral high ground. Conduct does matter. The robber might not be morally good, but he's better than the torturer. In these grey areas, I think it is okay to support the troops, but one must, and I mean not support the troops without doing this, call out the government for improperly waging war/waging a war based on a bad causus belli.
In modern conflicts in Afghanistan, the conduct of the American and allied soldiers is pretty good. The causus belli isn't as we have no need to fight the war. Americans should support the troops, not because they afford any real increase in security by fighting in Afghanistan, but because they are fighting "fairly". Important note: one must separate the different branches of the military. The boots on the ground aren't the ones torturing people in Gitmo. We shouldn't support Gitmo. Gitmo is a case where we have a bad causus belli along with worse conduct.
This is all built on a moral framework of free will. Without free will actions can be evil, but people cannot. As a determinist, I think it might be murder or a just action, but people can be judged based on those actions.
Would ignorance be an excuse? I mean, what if a soldier goes into an unjust war because they thought they were doing the right thing but were being lied to? Perhaps it may not be morally permissible, but I believe it should be excusable if the soldier was manipulated and that the blame should go to a superior.
To fit the analogy, what if the burglar was tricked by the mobster into thinking that he was Robin Hood and was actually doing the public a service? And only after that fact would the burglar realize that he was tricked into facilitating the mobster's greed.
His actions would be wrong because of the consequences, but his intent was good which indicates good character. I believe a person like this should be supported. But since "troops" could also envelope the person that gave the orders, it may not be good to use a blanket phrase like "support the troops".
I hate dealing with generalities in philosophy. Once we start dealing with such broad topics, there's so much room for error. And even though something may be true most of the time, it may still be difficult to make a judgement in the situation.
I think we should support the individuals with a good cause, but the entire military shouldn't be supported if the overall cause is a bad one.
Philosophy Tube "I was just following orders" makes me think/wonder if anyone will bring up Milgram's experiments.
"Do we have individual duties to the enviroment" is what I'd like the next
vid to be on since you once said that enviromental rights is something
"cutting-edge" in philosophy.
Olly,do you think you would ever be up to
doing a video on and/or related to the "quality" of self-help books? '~' .
I personally think that wars can be won through the use of military, but they can't be solved through the use of military
Personally, I even disagree with the base analogy: I think that if a burglar breaks in to another's home and the owner tries to harm him, the burglar is justified in defending himself. I think the case would be different if a *murderer* (someone with the intent to kill someone) broke in to a house, and the owner tried to kill the murderer, and the murderer defended himself by killing the owner. I think an important part of it is the intention of the intruder.
Also, I think it, misunderstands the reality of war. Soldiers are often practically unable to make free decisions: soldiers, as it were, sacrifice some of their freedom and even free will to act as the agents of another body. Also, troops are often kept somewhat ignorant of the implications of their directives, and are often made to believe that the war in which they are participating is actually just.
Also, I think what people (or at least I) mean when they say "I support the troops" is not that we are in full support of everything they do, but rather that they value their welfare, appreciate their service, and would help them individually. I think we can support individuals engaged in an enterprise without supporting the enterprise as a whole.
Even if the cause for going to war is unjust, surely once a war has begun it is morally right for the authorities to reach a truce which produces a moral outcome but it can still be morally right for the troops on the ground to fight, regardless of which side they're on, for the protection of their territory, population etc? For example, civilians in Nazi Germany may not have supported Hitler's cause but still supported the troops in fighting for their protection (especially given the memory of what the allied forces did to Germany after WW1)
I hope you revisit this topic someday, Olly. It's a good one, and 9 minutes was nowhere near enough time to cover even the most important points. 4 years is a long enough wait for a reboot, no?
I think it is legitimate to use force to defend your fundamental rights (like life and health), even if the target of your force isn't the person threatening you. Or rather, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to roll over and die when there's any action they could use to stay alive, even if the action hurts someone else.
And I don't think a burglar who kills a homeowner in self defense is morally guilty of murder, even if the legal system is screwed up enough to disagree with me. The burglar is guilty of a ton of other stuff, probably including manslaughter. But when someone is threatening your life, it shouldn't be considered murder to defend yourself, even if you did illegal things leading to the situation where you're being threatened.
The burglaey analogy might fit if the war/military action is a raid for resources, which would be the most comparable situation given that the intent in both is to just take the property of someone else. In most wars that is not the sole objective.
And if a burglar kills someone in the home who is trying to kill them then it probably wouldn't be first-degree murder or maybe manslaughter.
wow, this is... well done.
Very interesting all in all!
also lets take care of clones
We can apply "ought implies can" to the burglary case as well as to war. Consider McMann's assertion that it is morally permissible for the home owner to kill the burglar in self-defence but not morally permissible for the burglar to kill the home owner in self-defence. Is this the case? (I am ignoring what the law says; the question is about moral blame rather than legal blame). If, once threatened by the home owner, the burglar had literally no option other than to kill the home owner, then, by "ought implies can", they would not be morally to blame for the death. (Of course, in practice this only applies when there is no way at all that the burglar could stay alive without killing the home owner, which seems to be seldom, if ever, the case; for example, the burglar could try simply stopping the burglary and returning everything. If it allows the burglar to stay alive without killing the home owner, this point no longer applies, and indeed it may be because of this that McMann thinks that it is permissible for the home owner to kill but not the burglar, as in practice it is a lot more likely that the home owner has no other options than the burglar). However, in this case, they still had the option of not burgling in the first place, so while they would not be morally to blame for murder, they would be morally to blame for the burglary.
Likewise, we can apply this to war. Suppose troops are conscripted and forced to kill enemy soldiers. In this case, by "ought implies can", they would not be morally to blame for murder if they kill enemy soldiers, regardless of whether the war is just or unjust. (This is different from the "just following orders" defence, as in that case if you had the choice to disobey you would still be morally to blame. In this case, you are forced to kill, to the point where you effectively have no other choice). In this case, the soldiers would not be morally to blame for murder, just as the burglar is not. The burglar is still morally to blame for the burglary, but who is committing the "burglary"? If the soldiers have no choice, it is the governments who declared war who are to blame for an unjust war. (Any soldiers who killed in an unjust war without being forced, and any officers who ordered the killing without being forced, are still morally to blame for the murder, as they could have done otherwise).
Weather a war is just or not becomes irrelevant once it starts. Either way we are all together in it now and we must win. We can punish those who got us in it later.
I don't know if someone has already asked this question, but suppose that McMahan's theory is right. In this case, is still morally wrong a soldier who went to war to defend the unjustified side to kill a local (homeowner in the analogy), even when this local is attempting to kill somebody else (other local civilian)?
So, McMan's theory clearly tries to outline the general moral reprehensibility of a nation that goes into an unjust war rather than an individual who is involved in said war, correct? So, if there is an unjust war, shouldn't we take up our concern with our nation's leader(s), rather than hold all of the soldiers as generally liable? (Provided, of course, that we have the freedoms to do so without fear of retribution, but, if we don't have the freedom to question our leader(s), we probably don't have the freedom to question our soldiers, either)
Your very starting assumption is wrong. If you happen to already have been in the military in a country with a history of peace or generally just military actions and THEN your country suddenly goes off into an unjust war and you, already a soldier, are thrust onto the battlefield whether you like it or not, THEN the rest of what you're assuming applies. But if you join a volunteer army in a country with a long and ongoing history of unjust military engagements, you (should) know damn well what you're getting into when you sign up, and you are morally responsible for that decision, even if thereafter you don't have a choice (and so can't be held responsible) for the specific military actions you are forced to participate in.
There is a question of what "support" means. Does it have to mean what conservatives define it as, ie "always back everybody in a uniform, and never criticize"?
I would argue that supporting the troops can be much more broad than that. It can mean fighting sustained corruption within the military to ensure that the troops are not being harmed. It can mean opposing unjust wars so that troops are not pushed into unjust wars. It can mean ensuring that the bad soldiers are removed so that they do not cause physical, emotional, structural, or critical harm to both the troops and the military as a system.
When I was in the USAF, any time I pushed back against systemic racism and sexism, I was pushed out for not being a "team player", and had people say that talking about it was unpatriotic. But the first group that comes to harm at the hand of racist or sexist troops are Other Troops. Often the first ones harmed by saying nothing are actually in the same group as the offenders.
So I take a more broad look at what support means
At the end of the video you proved that you had been a hypocrite to say the 'respect and gratitude for ANYBODY WHO SERVES IN US military'. Seriously it's just become a thing Americans feel they HAVE to say when talking about the military. Talks about indoctrination. It even works on philosophers. Even when they're arguing against the point.
I'm not an American
Philosophy Tube Still I've heard that string of sentences dozens of time, and so have you. It just shows that now even non-Americans feel the need to say it when broaching the subject.
Nivesh Proag well hold on now sir. I have no love for government or military and indeed no respect. Im very vocsl about that. I support revolution in the US after the Trump election and hold a solid beliefe that NO country should have a mobile force only one for self defense. Yet i respect sll those who SERVE in the military. I disagree with yhe establishment but understand the huma. factor, that men and women join out of a sense of civic duty, honor and national pride. I am a citizen of the world, and so have no national pride to speak of, but I respect those who do. This I've called the Acceptance Paradox. i do not agree with what you do, but i would fight tooth and nail to defend your right to do it.
Philosophy Tube
I hope you changed your views on this by now. Respecting soldiers because your friends are in the army is just childish. It's a shame because seeing all your other great content makes that statement of yours sound quite dishonest, like as if it was some weird obligation.
I think that if you support troops defending your country and themselves, then those troops are fighting a just war from the perspective of their country, and it is ethical to support them. However, if the troops of a country are attacking another country or invading it, then it is unethical to support them, since they would be fighting an unjust war. The point is that war's justness is a subjective thing, not an objective thing.
I agree with several other comments that have mentioned the analogy oversimplifies the complexities of war. It also calls into question responsibility. To what extend do the troops have responsibility to stop unjust war. An oversimplified analogy of my own is in order.
You are walking down the street and witnesses a woman in an ally being raped. What moral responsibility do you have to stop the woman being raped? The typical consensus is that you would have some moral responsibility. I would say "that depends."
Requirement 1: I'll call this the intelligence requirement. Let's say you are a child and have no idea what rape is. But my argument centers around requirement 2.
(THE FOCUS OF MY ARGUMENT)
Requirement 2: Now lets say this aforementioned child understands what rape is and knows that the woman is being assaulted. What responsibility do they have now? The man raping the woman is significantly larger than the child and could potentially have a weapon. Direct intervention would likely cause significant harm or even death. Some might say the child should just go get help. But in the scenario of war, what greater power is there to appeal to than the government, and the government is the rapist in this case? So for the sake of approximation, lets assume there are no police or other adults to appeal to. This is to say that requirement two is the requirement of power to intervene. This is ought-implies-can.
Now lets make the argument more analogous to war, there is a kidnapper and 2 children. The kidnapper and child 1 are in the second child's home. All the doors are locked and child 1 can't get out. The kidnapper gives child 1 a weapon (that cannot harm the kidnapper but can hurt the other child - keeping the requirement of power in check), and tells child 1 to kill child 2. If child 1 doesn't the kidnapper will and child 1 would suffer for having disobeyed. Would child 1 now have a moral responsibility to not kill child 2? Would child 1 be held responsible being party to that aggression if he/she did? In either case, child 2 will likely die. It would be certainly heroic of child 1 to attempt to stop the kidnapper but is the child (not having power) morally obligated to resist even at great personal cost with negligible influence on the success or failure of the kidnapper killing child 2? It would also be heroic if child 1 chose to take the harm to their own person rather than kill child 2. But is the child morally obligated to take that harm given that the harm could result in the deaths of both children?
What if child 2 assumes child 1 is going to kill them and attacks first? Does child 2 have the right to kill child 1? Child 1 has now entered their house (similar to the burglar argument), is hypothetically carrying a weapon, and child 2 might reasonably assume child 1 is going to choose to save their own skin rather than be harmed by the kidnapper? If child 2 attacks first and child 1 has no intent on harming child 2, would child 2 then be responsible as a murder? Would child 1 have no right to self defense? This is the moral equality of combatants. Both are begrudging participants to a greater more morally complex situation even in the circumstance that it is a clearly unjust war.
My argument is essentially the burglar analogy where they include multiple burglars assumes equal power among the burglars which simply isn't the case in war and also assumes the soldiers are entirely party to the aggression and willingly rather than begrudgingly participating (as soldiers likely do not want to be in the line of fire or desire to harm their opponent). Given the opportunity I would say soldiers would likely choose to end an unjust war as well but not at the cost of disobeying orders, facing jail time, treason, and any other harm such as being killed by an enemy combatant after relinquishing their willingness to fight.
So i would say, yes support the troops right to not die even if it is an unjust war but still fight to end the war with the actual aggressor, the government instigating the aggression.
I think there is a distinction to be made for the burglar breaking into a home. If their goal is to kill somebody and they see through on this, it is murder. If they only intend on stealing possessions and their life is threatened, they should by law be able to defend themselves appropriately
(this is a draft for my point)
'Should we clone extinct animals?'
(If this one goes through, remember the theory about humans being the cause of some of these animals' extinctions, example; the mammoth)
my god you look hot in that uniform
Hah, that's very kind of you.
I feel like a deer in the headlights seeing Olly in that uniform.
But in the real world, very often conflicts are justified in both sides. What kind of government doesn't justify their causes? How can one ever truly learn every detail of the conflict to be truly deciding for oneself whether a war is just?
1. OMG, yes must see should we clone extinct animals!
2. Cool uniform.
3. Love seeing both sides of the argument.
My country was at war with England more than once throughout it's history. The last time, under a dictatoeship. Actual soldiers fought bravely, conscripts, underequiped and undertrained did what they could to survive while some high rank officers behaved in qistionable ways, not with the enemy but with their own soldiers. In the othet side, british soldiers were pretty decent dudes, even with POWs. Mercenaries, that to the best of my knowledge were sent by political authorities, however were not decent. All in all I'll have to agree with the soldier character. War is complex.
I was going to think of some clever point, but I've spent most of the day trying to wrap my head around what a just war is for my philosophy exam on war tomorrow, so I'll think I'll just bang my head into the wall instead.
It depends what you're fighting for and if they have a choice. If they are fighting for freedom and defending innocents then yes and if it's bad but forced then yes but if they fought for a bad cause voluntarily then no.
Here's an interesting thought if anyone is still here to read it: In a war where everyone is right, who is it right to support?
You gave insufficient evidence for the unacceptability of the "following orders" defence. In a military context, the individual of higher rank is implicitly assumed to possess more information and wider perspective, while the subordinate is implicitly assumed to lack essential information and possess narrow perspective; thus the subordinate must work within the perpetual assumption, in a combat scenario, that the following of their orders is vital to the security and survival of their fellows and themselves as well as the achievement of the objectives of their force. With that assumption, the soldier has an obligation to follow orders that ranges beyond the legal requirement that they obey. Insubordination gets your people killed, so you owe it to them to obey. I'm leaning heavily on the work of H.L.A. Hart in my reasoning, particularly some sections of "positivism and the separation of law and morals". My own stance is that the troops, as a general group, deserve our support.
Exactly. The system is built so they have to follow orders exactly once they're are there, even if they disagree, which is why I believe it's dumb to join at all.
they put the troops out there and it becomes more of protecting your side rather than killing the other at least that is the experiences I've personally heard from vets
I would love an episode on cloning extinct animals. I believe one could easily point to Jurassic Park for an argument against that.
I only watch this video to see Olly in his cadet uniform. ;)
soldiers are doing the deeds of their superiors. No human is superior to another. If an individual chooses to be mislead into fighting and killing another human then that is the consequence to their decision. In a world where every aspect of living has a price we fall into the belief that we only have limited choices to be able to live our lives so we blindly follow to fit in. Life lived today is like living as a prisoner doing a long stretch. Have the eyes to see and the ears to hear and you shall bare witness to the truth
From a practical standpoint, the troops protect us from our own government. Volunteers make conscription unnecessary.
I think, we should support troops in their non-combat efforts, and when they attempt to flee a battlefield. Otherwise, by association, we are supporting war.
Until our troops are post WW2 Germany style local defence forces only, their remit of "defending our national interests abroad" is, IMHO, immoral. Because defending our interests, clearly, impedes upon the interests of others, in their home locale. It has to, or our interests wouldn't be under any threat. Right?
Primarily, the "fault" is assigned to governments, in my mind, and I view individual combatants as victims. However, even if our governments train this nationalist, militarism into us from an early age, I don't feel much desire to "support" collective stupidity. So I would support _a trooper_ if (s)he where in need, but not _really_ "the troops".
It's interesting hearing this, as someone who's active duty in the U.S. Navy. It's like citizens forget that... we're just normal people and MOST people in the military will never see combat during their enlistment. Not everyone is infantry. Most people that I know didn't join due to some blind patriotism. They joined to get out of a crappy job going no where, to pay for college, to travel out of their home town, something that was nothing but a pipe dream before. A lot of the arguments ignore that if someone in the military does disobey orders they don't just get a wag of the finger. They could either be locked up for life or killed for treason. And while I think more needs to be spoken of about the actual psychology of the people in an army, I do agree that we are responsible for our own actions. If I was ever ordered to kill an innocent person, I'd drop my weapon right then and there. People point to the Nazis when it comes to the military justifying their actions as "just following orders". But America has much more recent examples of terrible acts justified as following orders. Just look up the "No Gun Ri" massacre. Also note that many of the worst crimes done by soldiers, in the more recent eras, especially toward citizens and not other combatants. Are more fueled by ignorance than anything. I think what happened in Tienanmen Square is an excellent example of this.