David Underhill – NE203 Ethics Notes (2^nd Half):_18 Oct 04 - 08 Dec 04 (9^th - 16^th Weeks)

David Underhill – 18 to 22 Oct 04 (Week 9) – P.209-231 (EMP), 7-12, 57-58 (CSME)

Monday 18 OCT 04 Readings:

Natural Law (209)

Natural Law – there are straightforward moral truths which can be discerned without an affiliation with a faith
Thread of Reason (the “Logos”) – holds Law together
True law is right reason in agreement with nature – eternal and unchangeable for all
Inspired part of the US’ founding documents

Summa Theologica (Aquinas) (213)

Natural law is imprinted in all, regardless of beliefs (is eternal)
Human (temporal) law – dictate of practical reason
Divine Law needed

1) Since men can have eternal happiness, he must have direction from God to get there
2) Human judgment is uncertain and inconsistent
3) Man cannot make laws which judge internal feelings
4) Human law cannot punish all evil deeds

All acts of virtue are prescribed by natural law
General principles of natural law are the same in all men

The Ethics of Natural Law (Harris) (217)

Natural law is not a “hard-and-fast” guideline
Basic outline is clear, but the closer to moral judgments you come the more prone to error you are
There is an objective truth, but we’re still working towards it
Human Nature

Useful to describe nature in terms of function

Easy to define a certain social role, but extremely hard to generalize it to all humans

Can also discern behavior (i.e. inclinations) … Two kinds:

Biological Values (shared with animals) – life and procreation
Characteristically Human Values – knowledge, security

Moral Absolutism and the Qualifying Principle

Moral Absolutism – one of the most significant aspects of natural law
Ethical standards exist independent of situations and consequences
Cannot trade off or compare à cannot violate for any reason
Moral judgments must evaluate intent

Qualifying Principles

Principle of Forfeiture – person who threatens innocent people forfeits their own life
Principle of Double Effect – one may perform an action that has a good and bad effect if:

1) The act, independent of the outcome, is good
2) The outcome is good and bad, and the good cannot be achieved without the bad
3) The bad is not producing the good; the bad is only a side effect
4) Proportional / equal – the bad does not outweigh the good
Note: though it brings about an evil, the act is not evil

Wednesday 20 OCT 04 Readings:

Natural Law and the Principle of Double Effect: Six Hypothetical Cases (Lucas) (225)

Background

Moral analysis typically takes place in “thought experiments”
Drawbacks: thought experiments can propose examples that are exaggerated, strange, and bizarre
Readers should not be discouraged by this drawback

See it as an attempt to isolate a range of relevant parameters to a specific question can be focused on

A classical example of this method in action

Gyges finds a ring to make him invisible
Glaucon describes the myth
Argues justice is an implicit agreement to limit the sphere of actions we can take

We do whatever we could get away with
We don’t do things because we are afraid what would happen if everyone else did the same thing
Believes justice is an outward social convention and that if there were two invisible rings, one belonging to a moral character an another to an immoral character, then no distinction between their behaviors could be made (both would “abuse” the power)

Natural Law and the “Light of Reason”

Reason can, independently of religion, evaluate the nature of right and wrong
Each case below is designed to utilitarianism alone is not enough to make a decision

Case I – a trolley is coming down the tracks; if it continues, it will kill five construction workers. If you throw a switch, it will go down a different track but will kill a single pedestrian…
Case II – trolley is going down the tracks and will kill five people unless it is stopped; you can push an overweight man off the bridge (killing him) and stop the trolley …
Case III – One man is recovering from a stomach ailment. Five others are going to die unless they get organ transplants. The one man, if killed and his organs harvested, can provide the organs the five need in order to live.
Case IV – there is a enough medicine to heal five patients with minor (but fatal) disease or one patient with a serious illness; there are six patients (five minor infections, one major infection). Does the doctor save the five or the one?

Real-life case: In WWII, penicillin was in short demand. Five soldiers came back from liberty with socially-communicable diseases. The disease is potentially fatal if untreated, but a little penicillin will save them and return them to the front. Another soldier has been severely wounded by shrapnel at the front and needs all the penicillin to live. If he lives, he will be sent home. Who does the doctor give the medicine to – the five or the one?

Case V – There is one swimmer swimming in one part of the water and five swimming together in another part. A shark is in the area and is coming to eat all six. You are in a rowboat and can get to and save either the single swimmer or the group of five swimmers. Which group do you save?
Case VI – There are five swimmers in the water and a shark is going right to them. You have a large, tasty person in your rowboat and you will not be able to save any of the five swimmers unless you throw the person in the boat overboard (he will be killed and eaten, distracting the shark and giving you time to get the five swimmers out of the water). What do you do?

Friday 22 OCT 04 Readings:

Incident at Shkin (Schoultz) (7)

I: Predator observed suspicious activity at Shkin (Al-Qaeda, Taliban)
II: US Spec Forces observe a vehicle exit the compound, flash its lights, and return with twelve vehicles

Report this observation to their command

III: B1 Bomber sent to destroy the town

Spec Forces CDR thinks this is rash and calls CENTCOM who cancels it
CENTCOM instructs Spec Forces to search the town
SpecF CDR delays entry into the town for 24 hours to get another team on site and give them some time to prepare

IV: Spec Forces assault the town, secure it, and destroy huge numbers of enemy weapons

Seven POWs taken for questioning (identified by the FBI)

V: The original Spec Forces team remains behind a maintains an observation point close to the town

Farmers see them, approach, and offer food and housing in return for a promise for the men not to bomb their town

VI: US forces are extracted; mission very successful (no key leaders killed, but key intelligence was obtained)

Terror and Retaliation – Who is Right? (Rubel) (57)

Palestinian man grows up very sheltered

Taught that the Jews are evil and killing them while sacrificing himself while ensure a place in heaven for him
He blows himself up in a café, killing fourteen men, six women, and four children

An Israeli gunship blows up a building with a bomb-maker inside

The terrorist is killed, but so are fourteen men, six women, and four children (collateral damage: they were having a picnic and the pilot did not see them)

David Underhill – 25 Oct to 29 Oct 04 (Week 10) – The Ethics of War

Monday: 239-254

The Justification for Going to War (239)

Even when civilians control the military they must consult it about war because that is their expertise
Performance is better when one knows what they are going to do, why they are going to do it, and believe in what they are doing

Example: Vietnam showed how a lack of these can destroy the effectiveness of an entire force

Just War Theory – the task of authenticating claims that war is a moral necessity in some cases
War and religion conflict

Christianity paints the picture of a non-violent society
Buddhism espouses pacifism
These things make it difficult for believers to reconcile the morality of war

US recognizes these people as conscientious objectors

Is it Always Sinful to Wage War? (Aquinas) (245)

Suggests it is usually sinful to wage war (not always)

Limits warmongers from using this as their justification

“Necessary Conditions” for a war to be just

Must be declared by a legitimate authority
Must be fought for a just cause
Must have the right intention

Other Conditions (by later scholars)

Must be a last resort
Must have a chance of success
Must be proportional to the loss required
Must be pursued through just means

Some believe this to be a separate consideration

Alsace-Lorraine – French territory Germans claimed should be German on a basis of language

Argues the people should “decide where their taxes and conscripts go” (in this case, they were loyal to France)
Once Germany annexes the land, the right of France to take it back diminishes over time because the people’s sentiments change

Though the standard for morals doesn’t change, people can change which can affect the morality of an action of a period of time

Legalist Paradigm

Domestic Analogy - states are a part of the international community possess rights like individuals within a society
Someone must be responsible for war – no war can be just on both sides

There are wars which are just on neither side

Theory of Aggression

States exist as a part of an international community
This community has law which establish a state’s rights (political sovereignty, territorial integrity)
The threat of force against a state’s rights is aggression
Aggression justifies two violent responses – wars self-defense and law enforcement
Only aggression justifies war
The aggressor may be punished (like individuals are punished for crime; for deterrence, restraint)

Wednesday: Bush’s Speech at West Point Graduation (2002)

The American flag will stand for freedom
“Our nation’s cause has always been larger than our nation’s defense”
“We always fight, for a just peace”
9/11 cost the terrorists less than a single tank
Even weak states can cripple strong nations with WMD
Deterrence cannot work against “shadowy” terrorist organizations
Containment is not possible anymore
The war on terror can not be won on the defensive
“We will send diplomats where they are needed, and we will send you, our soldiers, where you’re needed”
“Moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War”
“Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place”
“From here on, it would be the nation I would be serving, not myself”

Friday: 265-274; Bin Laden Letter

Terrorism (Michael Walzer) (265)

Randomness is crucial to terrorist activity today – death must be chance so that every citizen feels exposed
Terrorism emerged as a revolutionary strategy only after conventional use during WWII (bombing of cities)
Categories of people who are killed

Just terrorists can kill soldiers or immoral political figures (moral political figures are immune)

We judge the assassin by the victor – Hitler’s assassin would have been praised
“Even in destruction, there’s a right way and a wrong way – and there are limits”

Unjust terrorists kill ordinary citizens

The bin Laden Letter

US is the friend of Satan
Why are we fighting you?

You attack us
You think Palestine belongs to Jews
Muslim blood spilt in Palestine will be avenged
You steal our wealth and oil
You occupy our countries

We are men of peace just as much as Bush
What do we want?

We are calling you to Islam
Stop your oppression, lies, and immorality

You invent your laws (slap in the face of Allah)
Permit usury, intoxicants, immoral acts, gambling, exploitation of women, trading of sex, destruction of nature by corporations …

Discover you are a nation without principles
Stop supporting Israel
Get out of our lands before we send you back in coffins
Don’t support corrupt leaders
Interact with us on the basis of mutual interests

David Underhill – 01 Nov to 05 Nov 04 (Week 11) – Honor on the Battlefield

Monday: 275-292

The Moral Code of the Warrior (275)

A priest speaking to students at a Spanish university in the 1500s condemned the Spanish army

Denounced the military for their treatment of the natives
Disagreed with both their legitimacy and especially the way the military handled the natives

Even soldiers in war are constrained by natural law
The Code of the Warrior distinguishes the soldier from the murderer
The theory that “war is hell” and in hell one can do anything is denounced by most modern cultures (inc. US)

War Crimes: Soldiers and Their Officers (Walzer) (279)

The War Convention – there are moral constraints on the military during war
All combatants are morally equal
Combatants: forfeit the right not to be target; gain the right to be treated humanely as a POW; gain the responsibility to fight justly and use only the force needed to achieve the mission
In the Heat of Battle (280)

Two soldiers each shoot Germans as they surrendered
Officer tells CO they were in a killing frenzy and it was hard to discern the difference between combat and murder
This is like a plea of temporary insanity
Allowances may be made for certain situations – if a group has been attacked by soldiers feigning to surrender before, they may be less sure of when killing is “extra”

In the Thin Red Line, the men continue to kill after overrunning the Jap position from the rear and the CO says nothing

He should not allow the men to improve themselves at the expense of the enemy
Furthermore, killing is more a sign of hysteria than toughness
Command Responsibility – CO must take action to prevent such immoral killings in the future

When combatants are ordered to kill innocents, the liability for their immoral acts is divided up

Combatants responsibility for their actions is diminished

Superior Orders: The My Lai Massacre (282)

Soldiers may not be transformed into mere instruments of war
Two defenses argued by those who followed immoral, superior orders

Ignorance – didn’t know what they were doing was wrong (especially true with long-distance weaponry and bombs – impossible for a soldier to know if what the commander says is true)
Duress – stress forced the following of the immoral action (holds true if the harm is not disproportionate)

Command Responsibility (286)

Military commanders have morally crucial responsibilities:

When planning, they must limit civilian casualties to a minimum
When organizing forces, they must ensure their men are held to the standard

The Case of General Yamashita (288)

US forces disrupted his chain of command
His troops committed atrocities during this time (except those with which he could still communicate with)
The US executed him for not maintaining control (two Supreme Court justices dissented loudly)

The Nature of Necessity (290)

Killing civilians purposefully is always murder
Murder can rarely be done for a good cause (under proportional duress, or some other special condition)

The Dishonoring of Arthur Harris (290)

Harris was the commander of the British Bomber Squadron during WWII who led the bombing against German cities and civilians
After the war, he was not recognized and those lost under his command were not remembered

It was a big slap in the face and showed the British people’s new commitment to just warfare

Wednesday: 313-318; CSME: 17-24, 45-46

Is the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction Morally Defensible?: Ethics for Calamities (Reiman) (313)

Reasons in Favor of the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction

Innocent people should not be harmed
Combatants are trained and equipped for war and are prepared to be targeted
Minimizes overall casualties
Creates more promising conditions for peace

Reasons for Doubting the Moral Validity of Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction

Biased in favor of larger powers - larger powers have an air force which can kill indirectly (civilian casualties called collateral damage) while smaller forces attack directly (civilian casualties called murder)

Moral responsibility should be dependent on both consequences and intent
Walzer criticizes the doctrine of double effect for not imposing a duty to minimize harm to civilians

The combatant-noncombatant distinction does not line up with the guilty-innocent distinction

Noncombatants are often the guilty ones (producing war materials, driving capitalism if that’s the other side’s ‘enemy’, etc) and combatants are often innocent

Justifications for Abandoning the Combatant-Noncombatant Distinction

Most people are Kantian, except when it comes to large-scale thinking (then they become utilitarianism) – large-scale makes Kant inappropriate
Combatants and noncombatants are both members of the enemy, eroding the distinction between them
Noncombatant civilians have some responsibility for what their gov does

People with special relationships with susceptible people are responsible for their care
As the harmfulness of an action goes up, more sacrifice is expected to prevent it
Principle of calamity ethics – citizens have an obligation to stop the gov from committing large-scale harm

Interdiction in Afghanistan (Schoultz) (17)

Spec Ops asked if they can do a mission the next morning to stop a convoy of al-Qaeda leaders driving to the Pakistan border
There is little time to prepare but they get ready and go after the targets
Helos and SEAL/Ranger teams engage two vehicles and take them out (filled with terrorists and weapons)
LCDR Reynolds thinks he sees a woman in the car and has his helo gunner hold his fire

Puts the bird at risk (SA-7 could have taken out the entire team and helo)
Lands a few hundred yards in front and stops the vehicle
Turns out he is right

Back at base MAJ Wyatt was upset about the risk

Reynolds claims it was the moral thing to do based on his observations
Wyatt says it was extremely dangerous and a poor decision and says they were very lucky

Incident at Roadblock (ed. Shannon French) (45)

Soldiers have to move through a city after parachuting in the night before
All inhabitants had to be off the streets by 8PM
The soldiers setup up barriers and stationed guards with loudspeakers and native speakers at intersections
Tanks are also present to ward off anyone venturing nearby
A bus comes driving at the barrier and refuses to stop despite warnings

The occupants are dressed like the opposition forces and are firing shots
When it comes across the barriers, the soldiers open fire, killing all but the driver
They turn out to be joy riders, not opposition forces
The officer asks the driver why they didn’t stop; says they just wanted to see if the soldiers would actually open fire

Friday: 307-312

Winning and Fighting Well (Walzer) (307)

Battle of the River Hung

The Duke allowed the other army to completely form up before attacking
His army was weaker and lost
“I will not sound my drums to attack an unformed host”

Mao Tse-tung said “we have no use for his asinine ethics”

Argued guerrillas could not take prisoners
Either disperse or execute – a tactical decision

If rules can be broken for the sake of cause, then rules have no standing in any war worth fighting

Sliding Scale Argument (309)

Sliding Scale (extreme form) – soldiers who fight a just war may do anything useful to fighting

General Sherman held this view
Soldiers won’t kill civilians for the sake of killing, but will kill them if it advances their mission

Deciding against the sliding scale requires a position of moral absolutism according to many

Requires one to do justice even if the heavens fall

Implausible for most

Another alternative – do justice until the heavens are about to fall

Utilitarian extreme – restrains military action to usefulness and proportionality

Dealing with the tension between the rules of war and the theory of aggression (310)

War convention is set aside in favor of utilitarianism
Convention slowly gives in based on the moral urgency of the cause
Convention is overridden only in the most extreme circumstances
Convention holds and right are respected regardless of consequences

David Underhill – 08 Nov to 12 Nov 04 (Week 12) – Issues of Modern Warfare

Monday: 255-264

The Reluctant Interventionist (Lucas) (255)

April 1997: Sec. State Albright says US will now use force to defend human rights abroad
Jus Ad Intervention – when to deploy force for humanitarian ends

1) When a nation’s conditions or behavior threatens others or
2) When a nation threatens basic human rights

Epistemological - branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and its foundations, extent, and validity.

Epistemological Crisis – a traumatic revision of the understandings and knowledge of a society
MacIntyre’s description is more troubling – represents “wholesale repudiation” of a community’s beliefs
Conflict models must analyze morality

The concept of humanitarian intervention has upset the balance of international relations as people theorize about ways to make intervention a part of those relations
Moral considerations now play an important role in deciding a nation’s opinion and response to a conflict
Albright has made morality a basis for foreign policy
Realists fear that establishing a procedure for humanitarian intervention will allow strong nations to intervene in their own interests while pretending their intent is to solve a humanitarian issue

Author claims this is cynical because nations currently use national sovereignty as a way to explain their failure to intervene in both places where it is in the nation’s economic interest and where it is not
Attempts to write human intervention into realist policy have failed

The Intervention Imperative and the Dilemma of the “Reluctant Interventionist”

Force is certainly permissible when used to defend liberty, justice, and human rights
Sovereignty, anarchy, and self-interest provide an explanation not a justification for force
Intervention Imperative – if able, a nation must intervene to prevent injustice

How we carry this out is not specified

Reluctant Interventionist – actively seeks to prevent injustice but has trouble deciding which merit intervention
Weinberger doctrine – “Can you offer reasonable assurance that … what you are attempting to do is … just?”

Intent is to make it hard for authorities to use force to further policy
Albright’s doctrine weakens this stance by relaxing constraints and broadening when force is justified

Draft Provisions for Humanitarian and Counter-terrorist interventions

1) Intervention is allowed when a nation greatly violates human rights or threatens other nations

2) Sovereignty is ignored if rights can only be protected through intervention

3) Intervention must be limited to humanitarian concerns or the protection of liberty

4) Military intervention must be a last resort

5) Military force may only be used if likely to succeed

6) Intervention must cause a proportional amount of good to the harm it causes

7) Intervention measures must be moral

Wednesday: 296-306; CSME: 47-56

Perspectives on Intervention: Somalia (Zinni) (299)

In Somalia, Bush sent the military in without a clear political objective that was translated into military objectives
The humanitarian effort could be done with the military, but without guidelines it might not be done in the best way
Somalians demanded things that the military wasn’t prepared to offer (jobs programs, etc)
The American General set up a police force, prison system, and court system

They worked well but were not part of a specific plan

The UN came in and completely changed the approach to fixing the country, excluding many who would have been involved in the US effort
We have to decide what exactly our military’s role will be
The military has to pay for these missions regardless – this detracts from its ability to fight conventional war

Political motivation to get as many countries involved as possible is also a burden on the military
Many other countries do not have the logistics or training to support themselves in situations like Somalia which requires the US baby-sit and spend their own resources propping up other countries’ forces

To handle a situation like Somalia, a distinct policy needs to be passed down
America is the strongest and most economically great nation in the world and is a nation of haves

“We [must] make some hard decisions about the moral obligation we have for the rest of the world”

Case Studies in Humanitarian Military Intervention (47)

Rwanda (1994)

Was a Belgian colony until after some time after WWII
The Belgians favored the educated minority ethnic Tutsis and when they pulled out a huge tension existed between them and the majority
This tension began to unravel when the government by the majority was attacked by the Tutsis
When the leaders of both sides die in an airplane when it is shot down, Rwanda’s leader assassinate moderates and order the killing of all Tutsis
Many run around with machetes, clubs with nails, and anything remotely deadly and begin hacking Tutsis to bits
The UN peacekeeping force (Belgian and Canadian, mostly) is overwhelmed and withdraw

A captain with less than a hundred men is protecting over 2,000 Tutsis when he is ordered to withdraw
His is torn, but follows the order – the Tutsis beg for him to kill all of them rather than leave them there
After he leaves, they are all hacked to death
The Canadian general in charge suffers serious mental problems as a result later

Srebrenica (1995)

Srebrenica was a mostly Muslim city in Yugoslavia
Ethnic Serbs began an ethnic cleansing campaign
Dutch peacekeepers sent in to relieve weary, undermanned Canadians but are very poorly supplied
The Dutch become demoralized and communicate that they cannot protect their objectives
The Serbs capture 30 Dutch soldiers and threaten execution if they are bombed by air
The Serbs attack and air support is very lacking when the threat is reiterated
The Dutch are overwhelmed and evacuate, leaving the city to the Serbs who execute 7,000 Muslims

Friday: Code of the Warrior; Five Moral Dilemmas of Modern Warfare

Code of the Warrior (French)

A warrior’s code defines limits on what warriors can do and not do
Warriors of today often find themselves fighting enemies who fight without rules
The degree of separation between warriors and murderers is very small
Its easy to rationalize murder if one believes their cause to be noble – terrorists do not see themselves as murderers
No matter how one justifies their actions, one must follow the rules of war or forfeit their right to be regarded as warriors

Are the rules of war absolute or changing? Were American guerillas in the Revolutionary War murderers?

Rules governing when an how one kills distinguishes warriors from murderers
Terrorists believe the “pricks of conscience” they feel are their weakness trying to steer them away from their sacred duty
“The ugliness of war against an enemy considered to be subhuman can hardly be exaggerated”
Psychological damage is often the result of violating what is right
Technology cheats people from the “chance to absorb and reckon with the enormity of what they have done”
Warriors must respect opponents
“Everyone who cares about the welfare of warriors wants them … to have lives worth living after the fighting is done”
The warrior’s code guards their humanity

Five Moral Dilemmas of Modern Warfare

The distances at which lethal force can be applied is growing

Difficult for those who press the buttons to understand death is occurring
Makes one observant, careful, accurate

“In virtual war, death is far, far away”

A warrior must “keep a sharp focus on death and those you are killing” to maintain honor
Technology can make you morally numb which isn’t going to make you do your job with the “discrimination, care, and sense of responsibility you need”

The temptation to vengefully, indiscriminately use force is great when the other side does not play by the rules
The enemy may exploit a warrior’s observance of the rules

If we violate the rules, the consequences can be extremely costly

Military is also a diplomat of American values
Recently, military action has been subjected to legal review

This does not necessarily provide moral coverage

Ethical life is to important to leave to someone else; moral abdication should not be an option for a military member
“Moral behavior is always individual behavior”

David Underhill – 15 Nov to 19 Nov 04 (Week 13) – Liberty and Rights

Monday: 323-344

Rights and Liberty (Lucas) (323)

Military life is structured and restrictions are imposed on some liberties that civilians normally enjoy
Modern ethical thought marked by individual human rights
Liberty – political guarantees respecting the freedom of individuals
Basic or natural rights are self-evident and unalienable (Jefferson)’

What are these rights and negative liberties?
Negative liberties – non-interference for the state

Still open to debate

Whether or not political liberty is self-evident and inalienable
Should any other human rights should be observed

On Liberty (Mill) (327)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Power can only be rightly used in order to prevent harm
“Over himself, … the individual is sovereign”
Utility is the ultimate appeal of all ethical questions
Human liberty

Absolute freedom of opinion

Freedom to express opinions (almost inseparable from the first)

Freedom to pursue anything as long as it does not harm others
Freedom to unite as long as others aren’t harmed or deceived

Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Nobody should ever be silenced – not even one dissident in a sea of people who agree
To learn a subject as well as possible, one must study it from all perspectives
Freedom of opinion and its expression are required to the mental well-being of man for four reasons:

1) An opinion should not be silenced because it may be correct
2) Though an opinion may be in error, it is probably partially correct
3) Unless the truth is contested, it will not be fully believed
4) Without other opinions, the truth may be lost

Chapter 3: Of Individuality as One of the elements of Well-Being

Actions cannot be as free as opinions
Acts which unjustifiably harm others should be controlled

Liberty of individuals must be limited so one does not harm others

Traditions is evidence of what experience has taught one

1) However, one’s experiences may be too narrow or misinterpreted
2) Also, one’s interpretation may be correct but unsuitable
3) Conforming to custom does not develop one

Mental and moral powers are improved through use

Each person’s own “mode” of existence is the best for him

Chapter 4: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual

Everyone who receives societies protections owes society something in return
Everyone is bound to observe a certain line of conduct

1) May not harm others
2) Must bear their share of the labors

Society must enforce that each person bears their share
If a person affects other, society has jurisdiction over their actions
No person entirely isolated

Should laws govern mature individuals as well and protect them from drinking, drugs, etc?
Acts harmful to oneself affect society too

Whenever there is a definite damage or risk of damage, the case may be governed

Chapter 5: Applications

Trade is a social act – cheapness and quality are best obtained by allowing free trade (buyers must still have choice)
Liberty to sell dangerous items can be restricted in order to prevent harm
A public authority should interfere to prevent crimes and accidents
Acts which are harmful to oneself may be stopped if done in public (affecting others)
Taxation of stimulants up to where they peak is approved
A person cannot give up their freedom

Reflections on the Revolution in France (Burke) (339)

Government and liberty are both good (abstract)
Flattery corrupts both the receiver and giver
Do not congratulate too soon
The Revolution was to preserve our liberties
A constitution allow us to transfer government and policy to future generations
There may be situations in which democracy is needed, but not yet by great nations like France

Aristotle said democracy looks strikingly like tyranny

People prefer liberty in virtuous poverty to a wealthy servitude
Liberty without wisdom and virtue is the greatest of all evils
Do not mirror the British constitution in France

Wednesday: 351-362

Paternalism (Dworkin) (351)

I: Paternalism – interference with a person’s liberty for their own good
II: Paternalistic Laws

Breaking inflicts criminal penalties – laws against dueling, laws which set maximum interest rate for loans, etc
Law which make it difficult to do something – not allowing one to defend a murder charge by saying it was done with the victim’s consent

III: The class of the person affected is not always the person whose liberty is restricted

Ex: Professionals have to be licensed (protects patients)
Pure Paternalism – those whose freedoms are restricted are also benefited
Impure Paternalism – a groups freedoms are restricted in order to help another

IV: Legislation which regulates how many hours a worker can work a week is not paternalistic

The law is not overriding the worker’s judgment, but giving effect to their judgment because they couldn’t do it alone but only as a group

V: Mill’s objections to paternalism

1) Restraint is evil so those who restrain are burdened with proof
2) Since conduct affects oneself, one cannot fall back to the interests of the whole
3) One must consider the individual’s own good
4) One cannot advance individual interests through compulsion
5) Therefore, one cannot use compulsion to push one’s own interests

VI: Children may be interfered with because they have not fully developed their minds; hard to defer gratification
Paternalistic laws must clearly show the harm they are preventing by restraining liberties; must show they are proportional

Friday: 345-350

Human Rights (Nickel)

People have rights which prevent gov from taking certain actions against them
Parts to an appeal – Rightholders and Addressees; appeal says what the rightholder is entitled to
Universal human rights have become common in the past 50 years

Violations still occur – many nations still grant few rights to citizens

The Declaration of Independence was bold – rebelled against the king and was the first document to assert that all people had certain inalienable rights
Inalienable – cannot be bargained or taken away
Types of Rights

Liberty rights – freedom of …
Political rights – right to vote, run for office, campaign
Equality rights – freedom from slavery, right to protection by laws
Due process rights – speedy and public trials with counsel if needed

Magna Carta was the first document to say human rights were an important consideration
United Nations designed to formulate international law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – intl. bill of rights (no force of law, but set a standard for later legal docs)
UN open to all “peace-loving states” who promise to support the UN
Has helped human rights be recognized in most of the world

David Underhill – 22 Nov to 24 Nov 04 (Week 14) – Truthtelling

Monday: 395-409

Upholding the Truth (Lucas) (395)

War requires secrecy and utilizes deception
Honesty is the best policy in most situations, however
Trust is “essential for organizational effectiveness”

The military does not allow officers to lie

Western culture believes lying to be the worst of all immoral acts

Dante (The Inferno) put liars in the deepest layer of Hell

Individuals lie because of: performance, protection from punishment, others doing it, etc

When is the Whole Truth Attainable? (Bok) (397)

Focus is on whether or not you intend to mislead
Lie – “intentionally deceptive message”
Grotius argued that lying to thieves, etc. was justifiable
“Mental Reservation” – if you say something misleading but qualify it in your mind to make it true

When a law is too strict to live by, people find loopholes
Public authorities still swear not to hold mental reservations

Truthfulness is essential to society
Deception is coercive and gives the liar power (until one is caught)
Liars do not like to be lied to
Liars use caution around those who they have lied to

“Few lies are solitary”

As you lie, it becomes lies psychologically distressing and they seem more necessary and less evil
Trust is the foundation of relationships among people
Aquinas defined three kinds of lies

Helpful lies, Jocose lies (jestful), and malicious lies
Only malicious lies are mortal sins (the others are much less serious)

Religious Absolutist Perspective – “Death kills the body, but a lie loses eternal life for the soul. To lie to save the life of another, then, is a foolish bargain.”

Two beliefs which support this:

1) God does not allow any lies
2) God will punish all who lie

Utilitarians did not accept the absolutist perspective

Stress the differences in severity between lies

White Lies – a lie not meant to do harm (little moral importance)

Upsetting news is usually sugar-coated, etc.
Discretion must limit what is said

Excuses – moral reasons people use to persuade themselves that lying is acceptable

Four most common reasons used to defend lying: avoid harm, get benefits, fairness, truth

Moral justification must be made public

Test of publicity – asks which lies would be regarded as justifiable by other reasonable people
Look at the lie from the perspective of all who it affects
Levels of publicity

1) Look at the lie from the perspective of all who it affects (“soul-searching”)
2) Present the case to peers
3) (for more serious cases) Allow any to review the case – none may be excluded

Nature of publicity: 1) The public we consult should be greater than just ourselves; 2) No one may be excluded
Limitations – it is just a check
What must be done to justify

1) Look for alternatives to lying
2) Compare moral reasons for and against lying
Remember that lying and force are similar
Also, remember that lying can spread quickly

Most lies are unjustifiable

Wednesday: CSME: 81-82, 109-114

Major Knight and Cambodia (Wrage) (81)

Knight directs B-52s to their bombing targets
One day he gets coordinates from an envelope from a special plane
The coordinates are inside Cambodia and he is to destroy all evidence that the planes bombed in Cambodia and pretend they hit normal targets within Vietnam

Falsification of MV-22 Readiness Reports (Slyman) (109)

A squadron of MV-22’s is having very poor readiness – the aircraft are breaking quite a bit
The CO gets heat and has his job threatened for not having a higher readiness rate
The CO compels his officers and men to fudge the numbers and go around the system in order to trick the system and be able to report 100% readiness
This came to the attention of an officer outside the squadron who tried to get the CO’s boss to put an end to the dishonest practices
The squadron was reviewed by criminal investigators and charges were pressed against the marines who were guilty

David Underhill – 29 Nov to 03 Dec 04 (Week 15) – Justice

Monday: 363-384

The Idea of Justice (Lucas) (363)

Aristotle: “Justice is a matter of treating equals with equality”
Two distinct concepts (Aristotle)

1) Distributive Justice – Appropriate distribution of society’s benefits and burdens
2) Retributive Justice – Equal administration of the law

Glaucon said justice was society’s elite using their power to control society (still believed by moral realists)
We can object to the justice administered by stratified ancient societies because the criteria that determines how the benefits and burdens were split up were irrelevant in determining what a person deserved
Leaders who are appear inconsistent or like they play favorites causes discontent within a unit – important to military leaders

Justice as Fairness (Rawls) (369)

Problems of justice – liberty, equality, and social differences in society
There are many overly simple formulas: Egalitarianism (equal share) and systems based on effort, merit (meritocracy), ability and need (communism), and equal opportunity and success (laissez-faire capitalism)

Difficult to generalize these theories which work beyond a legal system
Often cause discontent and feelings that society is unjust
The form of capitalism above is not the form the US uses; businesses have some restraints in the US

Above form subject to corruption by special interests

Why is someone praised highly “on the basis of exercising talents … endowed at birth”

Frustrates those who working harder but have less natural ability

Third part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative – problem: lawmakers biased to the needs of themselves and their communities
Original Position – an ideal moral kingdom in which each lawmaker has no knowledge about his community or own situation

Would lead to a society that was fair
A powerful thought experiment which can be used to evaluate our laws
Promotes two principles: liberty and equality

Equality has two parts: public office is open to all and those best endowed and lucky will win leading to differences in social and economic status; not unjust because this inequality “could be shown to work to the benefit of even the least advantaged”

Reflective Equilibrium

Those in the original position
Not all inequalities are unjust (like social and economic status; see above)

Difference Principle – discrimination on the basis of race (etc) is unjust because the office is not open to all and the least advantaged is not benefited

Wednesday: 385-394

Crime and Punishment (Duff) (385)

1: Punishment, the State and the Criminal Law

Punishment – burden placed on an offender by an authority
Not all breaches require punishment
Types of Punishment

Censure – express disapproval
Hard Treatment – loss of liberties, money, etc. (criminal punishments)

2: Consequentialism and Retributivism

Consequentialism – justify punishment because it helps out the whole (crime-prevention)

Justified if benefits outweigh costs
Prevention through deterrence, incapacitation, and reform
Objections

Does not respect people as responsible
“Treats all [citizens] like dogs” because it coerces people

Retributivism – only the guilty should be punished and only in proportion to their crime

Negative interpretation – the innocent may not be punished and the guilty may not be excessively punished

Requires punishment to be deserved and beneficial

Positive interpretation – the guilty must be punished as they deserve

Should be punished so they feel guilt; does not matter if the punishment achieves good outcomes

Criminals gain an unfair advantage so punishment takes this advantage away

Objection: distorts crime (Ex: a rapist is not really taking advantage of those who obey the laws)

3: Punishment and Communication

People are imperfect; not everyone is motivated by the law – incentives are needed for a working system
Punishment’s primary purpose should be censure
Hard-treatment punishments are justifiable as deterrents

4: Penal Theory and Sentencing

Principle of Proportionality – punishment’s severity should be proportional to the crime’s seriousness

Helps determine relative severity
Does not help determine an absolute standard, however

Courts need discretion in order to use punishment to further reformative aims

Discretion could undermine proportionality

“Billy Budd” (Melville) (389)

Portrays a British naval ship in 1797 after recent mutinies on other ships

Billy is highly regarded on the ship
His superior resents Billy’s popularity and accuses him of plotting mutiny
Billy hits the superior, killing him
The crew sympathizes with Billy
The captain holds a military tribunal and finds Billy guilty

Says striking a superior officer is against the rules and that hanging is the punishment despite the situation

Captain viewed two ways

Unwilling to interpret the rules differently or show compassion for Billy’s actions
Moral hero for carrying out duty despite obvious sympathies for Billy

Loosely based on actual occurrence in US history

Son of Sec War was a mid and tried to mutiny
Was hung at sea
Infuriated the Sec War – did not think the proceedings were just
Led to the founding of USNA to improve the quality of naval officers

Friday: CSME: 167-176

Walking a Fine Line (Varley and Roberts) (167)

Up until the end of the 1960s, firefighting was male-only
With affirmative action and lawsuits regarding equal opportunity, fire departments had to allow female applicants
There was heated debates over whether females should be held to a different standard and how it would affect the units
Eventually, a reasonable test uniformly applied to men and women was devised and put to use
Also, veterans had to begin testing so that a standard was enforced uniformly across the board

David Underhill – 06 Dec to 08 Dec 04 (Week 16) – Stoicism

Monday: 425-448

The Enchiridion (Epictetus) (425) – “ready at hand” (handbook)

There are things within your power (opinion) and beyond your power (body, property, reputation, office)
Desire demands one to achieve certain things
Objects are the “merest trifles” and you can bear their loss (whether they be a cup or a person)
Think about what you do before acting (increases safety)
People are upset by their own views only – do not try to make others feel as you do
Do not be happy at others excellence; make their excellence yours (“I have a handsome horse”)
If called on by a superior, go immediately and without hesitation for everything you leave behind
Wish for things to happen as they do
Do not allow problems to affect your will
If troubled, figure out what you can do to overcome it
Possess your things as if they are not yours so that if they are taken you can say they are restored, not lost
Do not allow a servant to disturb you because he has no powers
Do not let others think you are intelligent
Wish for nothing outside of your power if you wish to free
If you can avoid taking worldly pleasures you can rule with the Gods
Accommodate those who suffer but do not join them (internally at least)
Act your role in life
I can derive advantage from anything that happens
To be free, ignore things outside of your power
Do not allow anything but your own opinions to provoke you
Daily consider death (but do not desire it)
Persistence earns admiration; caving in earns ridicule
If you pay attention to external forces, you will ruin your life
Hold status through maintaining honor
Pay the price for goods for they are to your advantage
If affected by something, remember how it would have affected you if it occurred to someone else
There is no evil nature
Do not speak your mind to “revilers” (do not criticize?)
Understand the perquisites and consequences of any action you take
“Duties are measured by relations” – another cannot hurt you
Withdraw yourself from things outside your own power
You should be indifferent to all events because you can use all of them
Speak concisely
Do no allow pleasure to subdue you
Act publicly – do not fear those who criticize you (because they are wrong)
Be courteous to your host
Do not try to do more than you can
Be careful not to hurt your mind
There is a measure of how many possessions you may have
Young women are flattered to be called mistresses; they keep their hope in their beauty and jewelry
Focus on the mind – do not spend much time on the body
Those you perceive to be wrong still believe themselves to be right
Everything has two handles – one which can be used, another which cannot
One cannot be superior due to wealth, eloquence, etc – a person is not made of those things
Do not judge appearances (motive is what counts)
Display your principles through action
Do not brag about your strengths
A philosopher looks to oneself for all help and harm – never to others
Interpret and analyze – do not just read or listen
Follow your own rules as laws

Roman Stoicism (French) (437)

Note: this is a very minimal summary
Romans prided practical achievements
Romans evaluated moral theories with the “gut-check” method
Stoicism – we desire good but have little control over what we crave so we must reconsider what we depend on for happiness

We always have control of our will and so can decide what makes us happy

Wednesday: 411-424; 449-454

Leaders and Moral Warriors (Lucas) (413)

Stockdale did exactly as his country ordered
He was captured and treated very inhumanely by enemies who did not believe war had rules
His country disowned him and called the war he fought for them dishonorable
Despite this, Stockdale persevered, relying on teachings by Epictetus

He not only comforted himself but commanded those imprisoned with him through the terrible times

Stoicism – school of thought which gave rise to natural law, natural lights, and moral equality

Courage Under Fire (Stockdale) (415)

Stockdale was bored studying international relations at Stanford
He entered a philosophy class mid-term and was engrossed

From this he got his inspiration and dedication
His professor introduced him to Epictetus
Read all of his readings twice (through two translations); felt he had a very modern voice
Philosophy in general and particularly that of Epictetus changed him for the better he thought
Made him somewhat anti-organizational, though not anti-military (Roman Stoics: “Life is being a soldier”)

Everyone should play the game of life as best as possible but life is like a ball – after the game, the ball is not what matters
When shot down, Stockdale landed in a town where he was promptly tackled (his leg was broken badly)

He remembered Epictetus #9 and was comforted, however
He also recalled in Korea reporters had said American POWs acted like it was every man for himself

Turned out to be selective reporting, but made him feel like a “man on a mission” when he became a POW
Eisenhower had created the Code of Conduct (“I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners”)

The broken leg eventually healed up and turned out to be a minor setback

The camp shocked all the POWs

However, they did not allow people to get down on themselves – they’d ask for their name and say we’re all in it
This was a turning point in many lives
Epictetus said fear and other emotions were a result of your will – helped Stockdale through imprisonment

Organized the camp through a tap code

Principle 1: BACK US – Don’t bow, stay off the air, admit no crimes, never kiss them goodbye, and unity over self

Always negotiate for everyone, not just yourself
Resulted in Viet Cong’s propaganda failing
Americans used sentences with double-meanings and jokes that native western speakers would pick up on
Forced Viet Cong to use the 5% of the POWs who refused to join Stockdale’s organization

Never charged with courts-martial

Viet Cong tried to break their will by offering to send some home early or put the leaders in jail

He advocated that none try to get out – others quickly agreed
He and his top men put in solitary

He never tried to preach philosophy while a prisoner
After Ho Chi Minh died he was threatened with death so he tried to kill himself

Viet Cong save him because they have to start treating prisoners humane
The world spotlight is now focusing on them and a mistake could ruin their chances of ending the war

A Vietnam Experience, Duty (Stockdale) (449)

He was addressing West Point (1979)
Explained a little about stoicism – each has a role in life and we must play well regardless of its importance
Why a man must keep his word (Locke)

1) God requires it
2) Society requires it
3) Not to keep your word is dishonest (shows duty can be understood without external laws)

“Kant explained the function of the human mind”

Moral obligation requires us to obey the laws we make for ourselves
Duty’s obligation is unconditional

Obligations of an officer

1) Must be a moralist – exemplifies good
2) You must be a jurist – able to make decisions of right and wrong

Warning: your laws may be unpopular, but you must still uphold them

3) Teachers are as indispensable as leaders
4) Must be a steward – take care of your men
5) Must be a philosopher to understand that morals are not always rewarded and evil is not always punished

“The test of character is … performance of duty and persistence of example when you know that no light is coming.”