Since my last post on War and Veterans, I had the opportunity to watch some Star Trek. I am a huge fan of The Next Generation and watch at least three episodes a week. I could probably write a book about the ethics of Star Trek, but I thought that the one I watched yesterday had a particularly relevant dilemma to the discussion we’ve been having on the nature of sacrifice, collateral damage and war.
In this episode, machines called “exocomps” have been proven to be very handy in fixing problems on a mining station. Data, however, has determined that he believes the exocomps are alive – and that it is wrong to force them to labour on the station. A problem eventually occurs where Picard and LaForge are trapped on the station and it becomes possible to send the exocoms out into space and blow them up to free the trapped officers. The following situation takes place:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iJVsTyauvw[/youtube]
Commander Riker is the utilitarian and the consequentialist – he wants to do the greatest good, even if it means sacrificing others. He believes it is “less evil” to sacrifice the exocomps for the trapped officers than to pursue a more ethically pure path. Data (often personified as a pure logical being), however, acknowledges that it is unethical to sacrifice any innocent life by force, and is required to make a choice – insubordination to his superiors or acting to preserve innocent life. Eventually, they argue and determine that it is best to try and ask the exocomps if they would freely try and save the trapped officers.
In axiomatic thinking – which is the type of thinking we are dealing with here – the examples don’t exist to prove or dispove the theory, but to illustrate it. Empiricism presumes that a theory is only as good as its ability to work in consequence – but this ignores the possibility of any knowledge, ethics or morality outside of human experience (such as Christianity) and even ability (such as communism or anarchism). In other words, because no human is capable of performing the ethically pure action of saving the exocomps, it does not “disprove” or “nullify” the ethical principle. In the same way, just because humans are incapable of keeping God’s law and living up to his moral standard in practice, it does not mean that God’s law is nullified or unbinding. We are still judged by this standard, even though it is “unrealistic.”
This example illustrates my point to some degree. It is wrong, and always wrong, to sacrifice innocent life as part of a “greater good.” It does not suddenly become less wrong because of a given situation or for given consequences (“reality”).Morality is above reality – reality must be derived from the purity of reason, logic and morality – not the other way around. Even though Data’s actions are impractical, radical and unrealistic (only he, as personified logic, can chose to save the exocomps – no human was willing or able to do it) they are correct. Ethics is not on a sliding scale based on how able we are to work them out or how “realistic” they are. The failing is not with the theory or the ethical axiom – it is with humanity’s inability to adhere to the greater principle.
You may also be interested in:
“‘You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’
He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied…”
Again, I would ask for you to show this from Scriptures, not just from your own opinions.
I remember that episode, and I liked it. The whole situation was contrived, but the ethical dilemma was intriguing. As I recall, the exocomps come up with a solution to save the lives of the trapped officers. During the rescue, one of the exocomps voluntarily sacrifices himself to save the lives of the other two exocomps. Thus the exocomps demonstrate that they have a higher moral character than Commander Riker, who had been willing to forcibly sacrifice all the exocomps to save the men.
Darius, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. When Caiaphas said that he was suggesting that the Sandhedrin plot to murder Jesus. That was a sin. John quotes Caiaphas to make a point: that although the Jewish leaders plotted murder, Caiaphas’s statement was unwittingly true: it was indeed better for Jesus to die and secure the salvation of a nation. But Jesus went willingly to his death. He was not forced into it. At any time he could have spoken up in his own defense and the Pharisees would have been unable to prove their case. At any time he could have called upon the power of God and walked away from the cross. But he didn’t.
Jesus gave his life willingly. Even so, those who killed him were guilty of murder. Although they made possible the salvation of countless numbers through history, they are still murderers.
I’m not saying that what they did was right, just that the Bible seems ambiguous, at best, regarding the morality of sacrificing one to save many. It could be argued that since God put those words in Caiaphas’ mouth that it is indeed right to do just that (of course, in that case, the Sandhedrin wasn’t doing it to save anything or anyone, except their own power). The bigger point is that I would like Colin for once to defend his opinions with Scripture. So far, he has avoided this at all costs in recent weeks, and I’m interested in what he believes the Bible says about it.
There is a huge difference between sacrificing involuntary individuals and killing an opposing force which is providing a threat. To push this to its logical extreme, if a soldier who is “just doing his job” comes to kill you and your family, would you refuse to use lethal force? I fully agree that I would not intentionally target innocents even as a “sacrifice” for the good of the many, but someone who is engaging in the illegitimate use of force is NOT an innocent no matter what their motivation or understanding. This blog entry sheds little light on the observations of the previously contended article. At best, it serves as an argument against conscription, but can have no relevance in the case of a volunteer army targeting aggressive hostiles.
Again, is anyone arguing for a conscription or draft? I believe what I (and perhaps Atanamis) am getting at is that you seem to be saying that it was evil for the Allies to fight Hitler.
Darius, I’m not sure what you are getting at. This passage you cited adds weight to my claim as this is the Jewish leader’s rationale for killing Jesus. While the bible doesn’t explicitly address this specific event for the purposes of morality – it does seem to show that the motives for killing Jesus were completely human-centered and self-righteous. I think it shows that the leader’s philosophy here was in line with their ideas on tithing of spices and cumin – that is results and “reality” oriented over actually adhering to biblical principles.
Darius, I sincerely question your discipline in reading prior comments and articles when you say something like this. I have cited numerous scripture and scriptural principles in defence of my position. When I have done this your response has been a variant of accusations of “twisting” scripture (with no substantive rebuttal). So which is it – am I “avoiding at all costs” using scripture” or am I quoting scripture and the bible and “twisting” it?
If I did not have my doubts about your willingness to express humility and teachability, I would spend the time to go through my past statements and outline for you exactly how I have fulfilled the requirements you are calling for (again).
You specifically told me that you were NOT willing to give Scriptural evidence, now you claim that you did. Which is it?
“If I did not have my doubts about your willingness to express humility and teachability”
As opposed to the humility you expressed when you called all soldiers dupes, moral idiots, and victims? I guess I would call that arrogance, to put it nicely.
Darius, I went through several scriptural examples, both literal verses and thematic material as well.
Please show me where I made a statement even remotely to the effect of all soldiers are “dupes, moral idiots, and victims“
“Please show me where I made a statement even remotely to the effect of all soldiers are “dupes, moral idiots, and victims“”
You may want to read your own article. That’s kind of the main gist of it.
Colin, you know I’m the first to call Darius out when he oversimplifies and demonizes his opponents, but if your intent with your previous article was NOT to say that all soldiers are “dupes, moral idiots, and victims“, you need to write a retraction. That is precisely what your article does, and why I have criticized it so vociferously. This is also why I gave you time to back off before posting, because what you are saying is entirely indefensible. Your own failed attempts to defend it should demonstrate to you the complete lack of logic in the position you have chosen to take.
Okay, a minor clarification. Your article stated that all soldiers are dupes, moral idiots, OR victims. Minor change, but one I thought should be made. The general gist of your article is no soldier ever signed up to fight for valid reasons.
Ah, I found it where you clearly implied that aforementioned statement in the comment section…
Darius – “Yes, veterans are all slaves or stupid dupes of the Man.”
Colin in response – “I refrained from listing expounding into the third category, because I didn’t feel it was appropriate this time: namely veterans who willingly fought wars despite knowing they were unjust because of selfishness (paycheck, loot, prejudices, etc…).”
This was your opportunity and you didn’t take it. So if you are now changing your tune, fine, but please be intellectually honest enough to admit the point of your original article.
So, to recap, you have so far agreed that veterans of war are either slaves (i.e. victims), dupes (i.e. moral fools), or selfish greedy bastards. And, if that weren’t enough, you wrote your article on Veteran’s Day. Now I wouldn’t mind you saying the above statement if you had agreed to a fourth category of veteran: those who signed up for war to fight evil and promote justice. But every time I offered you to modify your position, you rejected my offer.
If your intent with your previous article was NOT to say that all soldiers are “dupes, moral idiots, and victims“, you need to write a retraction. That is precisely what your article does, and why I have criticized it so vociferously. This is also why I gave you time to back off before posting, because what you are saying is entirely indefensible. Your own failed attempts to defend it should demonstrate to you the complete lack of logic in the position you have chosen to take.
Is there really a complete lack of logic in Colin’s position? Someone can yell at me if I am entirely off, but it seems to me that these are Colin’s supports for his position:
1) My only major assumption from which I am deriving my argument is that the State is not a morally neutral entity… [but rather an entity] that is wholly and entirely based on theft, murder, lies and subjugation.
2) There is no morality present in the philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ – that by committing evil, we can bring about good.
3) Offensive war… is sin and cannot bring about good, which only comes from God (James 1:17).
Now if Colin is correct that offensive war is sin, does not accomplish good, and the State is the entity that starts wars, how could one avoid concluding – to use Darius’s gentle terms – that veterans of war are either slaves (i.e. victims), dupes (i.e. moral fools), or selfish greedy bastards . If offensive war is evil, it doesn’t matter how earnestly a soldier determines to fight evil and promote justice, because it would still be evil.
However – I would be hard-pressed to class the Allies fighting in World War II as offensive war.
Sharon, I agree that offensive war is, at least in most cases, wrong. What I (and Atanamis and apparently you) am asking is that Colin acknowledge that Allied veterans of WWII are none of the above, that they quite possibly signed up to “fight evil and promote justice” and that they in fact did just that. Colin has engaged in disturbing (or “lame” as Atanamis called it) moral equivalency, and all I’m looking for is for him to modify his past statements and recognize that the Allied soldier in WWII was not the same as the German or Japanese soldier. Sure, some American young men signed up so they could “kill themselves some Japs or Krauts,” but many more had honorable intentions and served their country (and their God) with dignity. Colin has, in effect, spit on the graves and memories of those soldiers.
“My only major assumption from which I am deriving my argument is that the State is not a morally neutral entity… [but rather an entity] that is wholly and entirely based on theft, murder, lies and subjugation.”
I had yet to respond to this particular statement, but isn’t this a pretty negative (and anti-Biblical) view of governments? Sure, tons of governments are evil, but there are some that are relatively good. Furthermore, God sets up rulers and states, so just possibly some of those authorities are actually good? States can be morally good, not just morally evil.
States can be morally good, not just morally evil.
Not according to anarchists. A state by definition is founded upon the unjust use/threat of force.
No, my article says nothing about all soldiers being “dupes, moral idiots, and victims“. I have already summarized it for you multiple times and you have not addressed this, but have instead rhetorically stamped your foot and screamed “NO ITS NOT!” It is plainly evident that I am not making such an assertion that every soldier is one of these things. This can be seen in the premises I have outlined, in my pride in my own family history and the fact that there is nothing even remotely present in any of my articles which makes such blanket condemnations.
In fact, the statement sounds a lot more like the kind of reckless language you would use. You have a pattern of building a sensationalist straw man in many of your arguments, then repeating it ad nausium – if this doesn’t work, you sulk away. But if someone else also disagrees, even for an entirely different point that your strawman, you jump on their bandwagon (making sure to list the names of the people who “agree with you” in your response). You then reaffirm your strawman, as though someone else bringing up a (likely) more legitimate point lends weight to your (usually) ridiculous argument. Not to mention that through all of this will be name calling, ad hominems and diction such as “reprehensible”, “repugnant”, “tripe” ect… I am happy (still, probably because I am insane) to acknowledge a legitimate argument you want to bring up – but these are few and far between. This current line of argument is no exception.
Not really. And especially not here. Atanamis, look at this statement and show me where I say this:
“you called all soldiers dupes, moral idiots, and victims?”
I will admit that you have a legitimate critique, although I think you are wrong because your approach ignores the nature of my argument and demands of it an empirical proof when, because of the structure of the argument, it actually requires a logical rebuttal.
In fact I have said the following in, or directly related to, that article (have you missed these?):
Atanamis, none of this is even close to “you called all soldiers dupes, moral idiots, and victims?” Not even close. I have made it quite clear – numerous times even – that there is nothing wrong with soldiers, per say, but that many, in their encounters with the state, have been sacrificed, victimised and even had their own sense of right and wrong manipulated by the state. And even my point in this is not to blame soldiers for this, but to blame the entity which did this to them – namely greedy, reckless and abusive governments. This is not to say soldiers are weaker or more gullible than normal men, in fact, quite the opposite – they are some of the most noble – as it is because of their desire to live out good morals that they find themselves the target of the state’s most vicious, sustained and deliberate propaganda efforts.
The point of my article is quite clear and others have been able to understand it just fine. I don’t need to write a retraction because some people can’t separate a critique of government from a critique of soldiers. Especially when I have gone through such great pains to make this brazenly evident. I have been willing, on numerous occasions, to admit my mistakes or poor arguments – this is not one of those times. I can see that I could, in all of this, still have made errors in my precision in communication (which I have tried to remedy) – but, barring this, I think you have just quite plainly failed to grasp my argument. Your persistent return (ignoring my calls to look at my logic) to this line of argument seems to add weight to this.
I think (again, willing to be proved wrong here) my post is logically consistent and you have not even touched the logic of it. This is my point. I am glad to deal with a logical case against my argument – you have instead tried to make an empirical case. I rejected this even in the article itself by saying the following:
If you disagree with that, fine. But this is part of the structure of my argument, which Sharon actually lays out fairly well. These three assumptions (the third derived from the first two) are where the argument is made.
Arguing with the illustration is fine (WWII, veterans, war, military, etc…) – but it doesn’t disprove my logic – it disproves the illustration. I am willing to accept that both the logic and the illustration can be wrong – but you have not touched the logic (if you have, and I have missed it, than please show it to me and I will be glad to work with it).
Such cute little guys! Oh, but wait – they’re just MACHINES. I have a tough time grasping the personification of machines, which is probably why I struggle to appreciate anything about Star Treck and any Sci-Fi. But…
Obviously the argument is about the sacrifice of people, not machines or animals. Ultimaly, like the machines in the story, the soldiers are given a choice. If there is a draft, they choose to go to war rather than go to jail. If they join the military on their own, they are choosing their own way…either for money, excitement, a belief in the righteousness of the cause, or maybe they even have a death wish. Either way, the choice is still there.
Are soldiers victims? Pssshhhh…aren’t we all? All of us have to spend parts of our lives doing things that we don’t want to do. If it just happens to be the END of our lives, what’s really the difference. Like those machines, though, we were made for a purpose. Those Treck-y machines were made by man to help man. We were created by God to glorify God. Of course government doesn’t always get it right. But I think God has more control on this earth than we give Him credit for. If we don’t sacrifice ourselves, someone else will. That’s where the line comes between “victim” or “hero”. It’s up to the individual.
Colin, while not owning up to your original statements (such as the one I quoted to you), you have effectively repudiated them, so thank you. That’s all I was asking for.
the soldiers are given a choice. If there is a draft, they choose to go to war rather than go to jail.
That’s a great choice! I wish we could all be so lucky as to choose between being shivved to death in prison or being fragged in a foreign land.
But I think God has more control on this earth than we give Him credit for. If we don’t sacrifice ourselves, someone else will.
Now I agree with that. God is in control. As Christians we are called to sacrifice our lives in service and worship of God. We shouldn’t worry too much about whether we’re being victimized on this earth.
Colin, your logic commits the fallacy of begging the point. Observe:
Assumption: “Every single person, family or organisation that comes into contact with the state is either a victim or a collaborator with an entity that is wholly and entirely premised on theft, murder, lies and subjugation.”
Conclusion: An entity that is in contact with the state is a victim or collaborator.
This is almost a tautology. Every person on earth “comes into contact” with the government, even if that person is not a citizen of any government and lives in a land entirely without government. Even the native in an isolated land is affected by environmental decisions by governments that cause decreases in native wildlife (and further contact would be required to file suit for morally justifiable compensation to property damage done).
More specifically, you seem to be referencing government employees. This means that anyone who fulfills any role for the government in any form is either a victim or a victimizer. If this was your point, picking soldiers as your target seems rather disingenuous, since it confuses the root issue with other questions (such as the doctrine of just war, pacifism, etc). You proceeded to argue that soldiers infringe on the rights of those they fight, but by simply wearing a uniform of an opposing side an enemy soldier makes a lethal threat. According to your premise, it is the fact that these men work for a government that makes what they are doing wrong, so the rest of the logic is meaningless (which is why you can shrug off any proof that the more detailed logic itself is inconsistent).
Your post CANNOT be shown fallacious on the basis of your premise, since premise and conclusion are identical. There is no logic to critique. What logic DOES follow is invalid. I first pointed out the inconsistency of your article with reality, since it logical consistency of an imaginary concept is still imaginary. Even if we accept your premise though, what we find fails to pass the test of logical analysis. Your article is simply invalid in all respects but imagination, and should be rescinded.
This is 100% true.
I chose soldiers specifically yes, but I just as well could have chose your neighbours dog – as they both come into contact with the state. I chose soldiers because of the veterans celebrations in various countries. While some soldiers go into that role willingly, again, many have historically been forced or propagandised into that role. I have dealt with the “uniform” problem you cite by my “men with guns to each other’s heads” allegory.
However, it is not the soldiers who are wrong in many instances – it is the state for manipulating or forcing them into a fight they would never have fought voluntarily or without the propaganda. Which I have pointed out. I don’t think your criticism here takes that into account.
Colin, so long as you also attribute public school teachers, and government foster care program employees, and every other category of government employee as “manipulating or forcing them into a [harm] they would never have [committed] voluntarily or without the propaganda”, then this is a consistent position. What happens here though is that your position changes from “government manipulates soldiers into doing harm” to “every government employee who thinks they are doing good is actually being deluded into doing harm. This argument is NOT specific to the military, and using the military as an example causes confusion. Either way, the article was poorly written.
Atanamis wrote:
This argument is NOT specific to the military, and using the military as an example causes confusion.
I agree with the first part of your statement but not the second. It isn’t confusing, it’s timely. Armistice Day was a perfect opportunity for Colin to point out that this truth applies even to soldiers. There is a feeling among some–I’ve experienced it in people I know–that soldiers are somehow a cut above the rest of us, that they are super-men who have selflessly devoted themselves to public service, and that their job is a holy mission. Poppycock. I know some soldiers. They’re no better than you or me–stronger perhaps, and better trained, but morally just as sinful and selfish as you and me. It’s time to end the myth that soldiers are paragons of virtue and that their job is unquestionably righteous. They aren’t, and it isn’t.
If this was the intent of the article, it was poorly communicated. That said, I absolutely agree that being a soldier in a force being unjustly used is to be deluded, victimized, or a collaborator in the injustice, and that soldiers are not exempt for responsibility for their actions because they are taking orders. The soldiers executing civilians in Nazi concentration camps don’t get a pass because they are taking orders, any injustices in Iraq aren’t negated based on orders provided, and soldiers aren’t inherently better people than anyone else. (That said, soldiers and police officers do need more support than most careers, due to the far more traumatic jobs they perform even when their work is entirely just.)
The problem I have with the article remains that it assumes its conclusion, chose an ambiguous example for a generic point with no real clarification that the example might as well have been school teachers, and raised elements of a “just war” doctrine in an article that was predicated on the assumption that no war waged by a government CAN be just. When pushed to determine whether specific wars WOULD have been just had they NOT been conducted by government, Colin refused to clarify. This was an unclear article which the author continues to refuse to clarify, and as such is fully deserving of all the criticism it has generated (even if as you suggest its intent was legitimate). When the words chosen to express an idea cause more controversy than the idea being expressed, those words are poorly chosen.
I don’t agree that all government employees are victimized – some are deliberately taking advantage of the monopoly government has to enrich themselves at the violation of the rights of others. Again, for what this means in reality, it could mean something as crazy as every government employee should quit their jobs. It might not, but if the logic of my position is correct, it might dictate an extreme articulation.
Using the military as an illustration is just fine. It’s an extreme example, and also one in which I believe I can convey my argument to people who might not otherwise hear it. Obviously this didn’t work with you. I don’t expect it’s going to be 100% effective. In fact (article forthcoming *hopefully*), I am shifting my arguments to left-wing examples as I believe that liberty may now have more sympathy in the left-wing.