tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5876809000628903635..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Trusting leaders in contexts of warAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-25454526816722417642015-12-31T09:20:24.589-06:002015-12-31T09:20:24.589-06:00One thought I had since posting is that many of my...One thought I had since posting is that many of my worries was generated by this principle: <br /><br />(C) Unless your credence that killing x is permissible is very high, say 0.99, then it's wrong to kill x.<br /><br />But on reflection, C may be false. In particular, we can generate counterexamples to C by considering cases where a lot is clearly at stake. And wars are permissibly waged only when much is at stake.<br /><br />For instance, consider a case where it is clear that killing x will save ten innocent lives, and it is likely but not very likely (say, credence 0.75) that killing x is permissible. Then it seems likely that in some cases like that it may be permissible to kill x. <br /><br />Maybe. After all, I don't think that killing is permissible in all cases like those in the previous paragraph. Consider a case where a murderous mob will kill ten unless Jones is sentenced to death by a judge (simplify by supposing there is no jury). Suppose, further, that the situation is such that if Jones is guilty of the crime he's accused of, the death penalty is permissible. But it is not clear to the judge that Jones is guilty: the judge assigns probability 0.75 that Jones is guilty. It doesn't seem right in this case for the judge to sentence Jones to death. (Suppose there are four accused people and the judge knows for sure that exactly three of them committed the crime, but the judge has no idea which of the four is the innocent one. The mob, however, will kill ten people for each unexecuted accused person. It is clearly wrong for the judge to execute each one, even though by executing each, he has a 0.75 chance of executing a guilty person.)<br /><br />There is need for a lot of work about making decisions in situations of moral uncertainty. <br />Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-77356365836500514482015-12-31T09:00:30.707-06:002015-12-31T09:00:30.707-06:00Mr Moore:
Thank you for this helpful discussion o...Mr Moore:<br /><br />Thank you for this helpful discussion of the realities.<br /><br />In battlefield situations, presumably immediate obedience is needed. So the issues of trust need to be figured out before battle. At the same time, split-second judgments that something is immoral are possible in really clear cases ("throw a grenade at that group of children in the middle of the field"). <br /><br />It is interesting that the ethical issues come up in non-violent aspects of military service. I suppose one would have many of the ethical issues one sees in the business world, with the added complication that the expectations of obedience are stronger but also with the safeguard provided by a better-defined set of procedural rules.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75216915194295776572015-12-31T08:52:53.526-06:002015-12-31T08:52:53.526-06:00I have heard of several relevant instances from ve...I have heard of several relevant instances from veteran students, or philosophers connected somehow with the military. The gist is, like M.A.D. Moore’s #3, that the military expects immediate obedience to any orders, and therefore it effectively presumes epistemological deference in moral matters. They do teach just war doctrine at the officer academies, and you are allowed to refuse an illegal order, but in practice, standing on your morality against an order from a superior is likely to get you jailed or discharged, the more so the more junior you are. <br /><br />My own view is that the current military/government cannot be trusted to issue moral orders, and therefore Christians would do well to stay away from military service. I have advised Christian students accordingly in the past. <br />Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-72415622340711352132015-12-30T16:16:49.661-06:002015-12-30T16:16:49.661-06:001) “someone whose moral judgment is so badly mista...1) “someone whose moral judgment is so badly mistaken …is not to be trusted in moral judgments relating to life and death.”<br /><br />I was in the Marine Corps from 2001-2005. For reasoning somewhat similar to this, I realized at the time that I would not have enlisted had Mr. Gore won the election.<br /><br />2) Unfortunately, the number of military members who have enlisted because of what can generally be termed “principled”<br />reasons is very small. That is, notions of defending the homeland, fighting for justice, are virtually non-existent ideals as to why young people exist. Most enlist for the job security, excitement, GI Bill post-enlistment, or very often, the lack of opportunities for someone with only a high school diploma. This is offered as practical background information to let you know how rare, in fact, the concerns you mention would be to the average GI Joe or Jane.<br /><br />3) In battlefield-type scenarios, perhaps such as the one you describe, split second decisions are of course determinative of life or death. That being the case the junior enlisted (I speak for the role about which I am most familiar) are trained to obey immediately, decisively, and with focused effectiveness. Thus, it is, in a fundamental sense, to fail to fulfill the role of Marine or soldier if one does conscientiously weigh all the decisions delivered from superiors. A delay added here or there, multiplied by the chain of command, gets not only me and you killed, but perhaps squads and whole units destroyed as well.<br /><br />4) In non-battlefield situations, the approach is somewhat different. My unit did fund-raising, initiated and conducted by a handful of warrant officers, for the ostensible benefit of raising disposable income for the junior Marines, but which transparently also served to enrich the officers. The scheme was to force (“voluntold” was the word of the day) junior Marines into working the concessions at professional baseball games in San Diego, while the officers gained free admission to the games to “supervise” from the stands, while also making a profit off the work of others. I was the only one who refused to do this work, on the belief that I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to enrich for-profit 3rd parties. I was prepared to approach a Navy Judge Advocate General (~ military lawyer) for help if push came to shove, but instead I only had to deal with bad blood for the final 6 months of my enlistment. In contrast to the difficulties I mentioned about battlefield scenarios, there are probably not a few occasions in the military where one does need to stand his ground.M.A.D. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960034824269629331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-35874060646732716792015-12-29T11:17:07.034-06:002015-12-29T11:17:07.034-06:00Really good book to read on this is "Church o...Really good book to read on this is "Church of Spies, The Pope's Secret War Against Hitler" by Mark Riebling. I'm about 2/3rds of the way through.Dagmara Lizlovshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744785407281199347noreply@blogger.com