The Army: A Profession of Arms

[wm]

The problem with our profession is that rights are at stake. If we fail to do our job, those we protect will lose rights (life, liberty, political community etc.). However, if we do our job incorrectly, act on the wrong people or in the wrong way, rights are lost as well. This is what makes morality appropriate to the conversation.

I submit that the problem with this discussion of morality is that it is based on a notion that rights are primary. On such a view, duties (which are the "musts" of moral claims) are artifactual on rights. In other words, because you have a right to life, I have a duty not to kill you.

An alternative point of view is that duties are primary and that rights are artifacts derived from those duties. On this view, your right to life is artifactual on my duty not to harm others.

I suspect that the view of rights as secondary may be somewhat tough to swallow given what the Declaration says about inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, I submit for reflection the idea that rights derived from duties may be just as inalienable as rights that are primary.

If one wishes to hold that rights are primary, then I think one should be able to explain from where those rights proceed in a way that does not require some appeal to consequences as the source of the rights.
Morality, by its very nature must be universal. That is, the truths of its claims must apply to all people at all times in all places. Otherwise we are simply dealing with useful rules of societal conduct. I submit, along with that eccentric East Prussian Immanuel Kant, that any theory that is based on consequences for evaluating the truth of its moral claims cannot be universal because every one of its prescriptions is conditional--of the form "if..., then...". Should one not desire the antecedent, then the rule of action found in the consequent would not apply.

Universal truths are unconditional. So are duties.

[Pete]

There's morality and then there's morality. When I was in OCS in '77 we had a lecture on the Law of Land Warfare in the auditorium of Infantry Hall at Fort Benning. The instructor described a hypothetical situation -- an NVA machine gunner opens fire on an infantry platoon in Vietnam and blows half of them away. When a G.I. sees his buddies get killed he rushes the MG and when he's 10 feet away the NVA gunner throws up his arms in surrender. The G.I. kills him anyway. The school solution -- a war crime has just been committed. I asked a fellow OCS candidate, an 11B 101st Vietnam veteran, what he thought about that. He said that you should give the guy a medal. Terry's first officer assignment was with the Old Guard at Fort Myer because he was a second lieutenant with a CIB.

[slapout9]

I suspect that the view of rights as secondary may be somewhat tough to swallow given what the Declaration says about inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, I submit for reflection the idea that rights derived from duties may be just as inalienable as rights that are primary.

I believe the Constitution does say that. Everyone remembers about their rights from their creator but they forget the part about "In order to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men." IOW you have to have laws to enforce responsibilities (duties).

[Bob Underwood]

I submit that the problem with this discussion of morality is that it is based on a notion that rights are primary.

Well, nothing I've said is inconsistent with a Kantian conception of rights. And holding these rights to be primary in this context doesn't necessarily require a consequentialist appeal.

Universal truths are unconditional. So are duties.

Perhaps, but duties are not the only source of moral value. And certainly not the only one relevant to the ethics of war.

[wm]

Well, nothing I've said is inconsistent with a Kantian conception of rights. And holding these rights to be primary in this context doesn't necessarily require a consequentialist appeal.



Perhaps, but duties are not the only source of moral value. And certainly not the only one relevant to the ethics of war.

These responses dodge the point I made--that a moral theory whose metaphysical underpinning holds rights claims to be primary in establishing values is not likely to be able adequately to address the issues of morality in war.
And, I submit that the US Army is rooted in a morality that is duty based.

"Duty-Honor-Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, and what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn." Speech Upon Receiving the Sylvanus Thayer Medal, United States Military Academy, May 12, 1962

But an officer on duty knows no one -- to be partial is to dishonor both himself and the object of his ill-advised favor. What will be thought of him who exacts of his friends that which disgraces him? Look at him who winks at and overlooks offenses in one, which he causes to be punished in another, and contrast him with the inflexible soldier who does his duty faithfully, notwithstanding it occasionally wars with his private feelings. The conduct of one will be venerated and emulated, the other detested as a satire upon soldiership and honor.

I would really like to see an argument (in the philospher's use of that term) in defense of the primacy of rights that does not appeal to consequences for its proof.

[jmm99]

since I am not going to be doing legal philosophy. My focus is as a legal practitioner, where I have to look at what the "law" is and how it will be applied today, and a certain amount of prophecy about the future (perhaps a decade or so out).

As one with a practitioner's focus, I will definitely not satisfy those who actually believe in Wilf's signature line - without his big grin at the end:

"I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

Therefore, I avoid getting involved in legal philosophical arguments (as a philosopher would voice them).

If wm and bob underwood join in such a discussion, much of it will be over my head. As you can see from Jurisprudence - Wiki, there are many different takes. Most of them are quite theoretical and are frankly outliers to the legal practitioner.

The closest "school" fitting the practitioner is probably that of Legal realism - Wiki:

The essential tenet of legal realism is that all law is made by human beings and is therefore subject to human foibles, frailties and imperfections.

In accord with that soundbite, legal realists and legal practitioners are an unruly bunch of cats, whose "philosophies" and "logic systems" tend to be more or less "fuzzy" (see Fuzzy Logic - Wiki).

That description fits the granddaddy tiger of US realism, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, whose best soundbite was this one, tailored especially for Ken:

Holmes, in his last years, was walking down Pennsylvania Avenue with a friend, when a pretty girl passed. Holmes turned to look after her. Having done so, he sighed and said to his friend, "Ah, George, what wouldn't I give to be seventy-five again?" Isaac Asimov, (writing as "Dr. A"), The Sensuous Dirty Old Man (1971).

Of course, Holmes was very much shaped by his brief, but bloody military career as a Lt. and Cpt. in the 20th Massachusetts, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "The Magnificent Yankee". That experience lay behind another of his soundbites (more pertinent to the present thread):

This responsibility will not be found only in documents that no one contests or denies. It will be found in considerations of a political or social nature. It will be found, most of all in the character of men.

In that, Holmes was cognizant of the Heroes (e.g., as described by Brian Linn), but also the Anti-Heroes.

From the legal practitioner's standpoint, the most important Holmesian soundbites are these:

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

General propositions do not decide concrete cases.

Those satisfy me; probably will satisfy Wilf; but probably will not satisfy he or she who demands: "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

Adding to this same train of thought are some longer Holmesianisms:

...men make their own laws; that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite. The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.

The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. The practice of it, in spite of popular jests, tends to make good citizens and good men. When I emphasize the difference between law and morals I do so with reference to a single end, that of learning and understanding the law.

The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.

I don't want this to turn into a three-sided debate; but I felt obligated to the readers who are not into legal philosophy (jurisprudence) to point out that legal practice is a very different breed of cat - to whom, the theorists are generally very much outliers.

None the less, I'm looking forward to a debate between philosophers about Just Law Theory, duties and rights (or should it be rights and duties ?). I leave one last Holmesianism for our philosophers:

Any two philosophers can tell each other all they know in two hours.

Cheers and regards

Mike

[Chuck Grenchus, CAPE]

All - - - Great discussion to this point!

I'd like to try and toss another topic out there on an important aspect to our Profession that I believe all of you will have an opinion on:

Who is a member of the Profession of Arms?

As we go forward and examine ourselves as a profession, as described and intended by the Army Chief of staff below in the quotation below, we need to ensure that ALL members of the profession are included in any such discussion, analysis, and eventual follow-on recommendations. To do so ensures a complete and thorough effort.

But I ask all of you: In your opinions, who really makes up our Profession of Arms?

Just those who wear the uniform today? Or some subset of those serving today? Only combat branches? What about support branches?

Are Dept of Army civilians included in the profession? Army Retirees? Or for that matter, anyone who has served honorably?

Are Army civilians serving in combat theaters members of the profession?

And are spouses to be considered as well?

Where are the boundaries?

Quote from initial posting: " . . . The Army Chief of Staff acknowledges the importance of this to our profession’s future: “ . . . it is essential that we take a hard look at ourselves and ensure the we fully understand what we have been through, how we have changed and how we must adapt to succeed in an era of persistent conflict. I encourage all leaders to think about how to accomplish this. It is essential to the continued effectiveness of our profession and to ensure that our young leaders are prepared for success in the decade.”

[Scotty]

For your interest:

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli...nglish_001.pdf