NE203 Ethics

Complete Notes

23 August 2004 to 08 December 2004 (Weeks 1 to 16)

by David Underhill
David Underhill – NE203 Ethics Notes (1^st Half):_23 Aug 04 - 11 Oct 04 (1^st - 8^th Weeks)

David Underhill – 30 Aug 04 (1^st Week) – p.3-7, 9-11, 13-19 (EMP); p13-16 (CS)

Ethics and the Military in America (3)

• Purpose of ethics course is to develop one’s ability to make ethical decisions and explain those decisions
• US officers get their basic values from the nation’s documents (Constitution)
• It can be difficult to interpret – there have been many Supreme Court rulings on it

The Frustrations of Ethics (3)

• There is no single formula to clearly find the right ethical answer to any ethical question
• A short course on ethics would not do justice to the rich moral heritage and profound concepts behind it

What Might We Gain From the Study of Ethics? (4)

• New members of the armed forces have to learn that loyalty to the truth over shipmates, etc. is required
• All members must understand that the US fights wars ethically – not victory by any means
• This makes war more difficult, more costly

The Role of Philosophy in Morality (5)

• Only through serious reflection can we improve our understanding of ethics

On the Eve of Battle (George R. Lucas) (9)

• About Capt. Erskine, USMC in Kuwait awaiting for orders to invade Iraq (2003)
• Wondered why the US didn’t get involved in Sierra Leone, Congo, etc.
• Despite his beliefs, he was proud to serve the Marines and lead his men into Iraq
• He was inspired by a Brit LtCol who reminded his men that they were there to liberate
• Erskine was KIA, becoming one of the first casualties in the war (caught crossfire)

The Ring of Gyges (Plato) (13)

• Asks why even bother to have morals
• To do wrong is naturally good, to be wrong is naturally bad; suffering far exceeds the good
• As a result, men make laws so they don’t inflict injury upon each other
• Every organism naturally desires gain and pursues it
• Both just and unjust men have this desire
• Just men will follow laws in place, however, which check this desire
• Every man believes that committing injustices serves themselves better than being just

Why is Ethics so Hard? (Grassey, Stockdale) (15)

The Perspective of the Individual (15)

• In most situations, we easily identify right from wrong and hardly think about it
• Moral Complexity – life does not always offer a clear choice; there will be pros and cons to both sides
• Ethics made hard from:
• Morality changes
• Pressure from time and the limits of knowledge
• Greatest difficulties arise when we have to discern human motivations
• Emotions can influence self-control
• A moral individual may make an immoral or poor decision due to emotions; they may even realize it is the worse decision but go ahead with it because of strong emotions

Perspectives on Organizations (16)

• Ethics is not just about the individual
• The organizations what really matters – each person within should fall under its morals
• To rise in rank, one must master the culture of the service, including its ethics
• Personal and professional ethics are different and separate

Some Thoughts on Theory (18)

• Two extremes of ethics
• Low: they specify the minimum level of performance
• High: they specify the ideal
• Three approaches to making ethical decisions
• Absolute rules – written in law, clear; Ex: POWs should not be tortured
• Consequences of actions and what one should do to achieve the best results
• What is the intent of the person?
• Ethics is described as the high country of the mind by Robert Pirsig
• You must consider hard questions because our beliefs depend on our answers

The Bottom Line (19)

• We are bound to uphold our profession’s ethical code
• Bottom line: we may have to sacrifice ourselves in service
• We cannot rely on ourselves to judge our judgment
• We have the responsibility to get external assistance to improve our moral deliberations
• Being an officer requires strict adherence to the military ethic

Rescuing the Boat People (CAPT Rick Rubel) (13)

• A US LPD comes upon a boat of refugees
• The captain stops the LPD near them
• The refugees try to swim to the LPD but the captain refuses to let them aboard
• The captain has the XO check the boat and OPS tell him the rules for embarking refugees
• The boat appears seaworthy, though they say they’d lost 20 men already
• The LPD is on a mission and embarking refugees could be dangerous
• With twenty dead already, it seems they must be having some serious problems

David Underhill – 2^nd Week – Constitutional Ethics

Monday 30 Aug 2004 – P.63-80

The US Constitution and the Moral Foundations of Military Service: Conflicts of Principles and Loyalties (63)

• Warrior Code of Conduct
• Non-combatants are immune
• Treat POWs with restraint
• Use deadly force only when justified
• Countries are viewed as having the right to run themselves as they see fit
• US Officer Commission Oath
• Commit loyalty to the Constitution – the framework for universal moral principles is contained within it
• Protect interests with even-handed impartiality
• Commitment to sacrifice
• Self for shipmate, shipmates for ship, ship for the mission
• Even minor disobedience of reasonable orders shows a profound betrayal of trust
• Either obey or resign
• Natural Law vs. State Law
• Even well-intentioned democratic gov can be guilty of moral error
• Disobedience is a last resort – other paths to remedy the problem must be attempted

The Moral Foundations of Military Service – Martin Cook (65)

Ethics of Military Service

• Clausewitz – the real purpose of the military is to serve the national interest … if so then:
• Rhetoric about military virtues is a screen to hide the fact that the military only serves national interests
• Only absolute pacifists deny the right to self-defense (resist border incursion, protect lives)
• Self-defense often stretched to encompass vague ideas
• States Importance
• States with boundaries and political heads not like today’s until the Reformation
• After the 30 Years War, the Peace of Westphalia was established to prevent religion from causing further war
• Emphasized war was for defense of territory and political
• Sovereign states analogous to a free individual, able to pursue the life and beliefs of their choosing, free from interference from others
• Role of the military is to defend a political and social order from threats
• Officer must serve with integrity and professionalism
• Not their responsibility to assess the state’s or war’s moral worth
• Killing for One’s Country
• One must serve the state as it is, not as a fantasy state that does no wrong
• Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer: One serves the state to protect the common lives shared by citizens
• The sacrifice required by common life must be willingly accepted to have moral justification
• GEN Eisenhower’s Attitude: refusing to meet with the German GEN because he believed that professional soldier was not on the same moral level as he was
• Suggests a new thinking about warfare
• Kuwait was a good example of the Westphalian paradigm, but it is tainted because of oil
• Kosovo was legit but the protest was that Kosovo was not of the nation’s interest
• If this is why we stayed out, then claims to moral justifications are false and the war is just politics
• Reasons to serve
• Westphalian answer (defense of common life)
• Universalizing answering terms of transcendent moral and political values

Ethics in Military Service (71)

• Growing gap exists between military and civilians
• Could lead to the military believing itself morally superior to civilian culture
• Could also cause a loss of mutual trust and respect
• People are drawn to the military for benefits (education, training, travel)
• People stay in the military because they see an ideal human community grounded in service to others

Constitutional Ethics – Col Paul E. Roush (Ret.) (75)

• Initial fear of a standing army caused its control to be distributed between branches
• Placing power in the hands of a small minority was seen as inviting tyranny
• Presidential Constraints – Commander-In-Chief, so he has authority over all military commanders
• Congressional Constraints – Power of the purse; regulates the armed forces – UCMJ, admin stuff ($, retirement, etc)
• Judicial Constraints – few cases; usually give wide latitude
• Supreme Law of the Land
• Military cannot ignore Congress
• Agreements the US makes are binding on its military too (Geneva, etc)
• Constitutional Paradigm – four principles guide its practical application

1. Priority of loyalties: Constitution, Mission, Service, Ship, Shipmate, Self

2. Resolve conflicting loyalties then act

3. Follow the above principles or resign

4. If the act is believed to be a greater evil than disobeying the above, then disobeying an order to attain a higher good can be a worthwhile risk, though it may result in severe consequences … prerequisites for this:

• Fundamental violation of justice; non-trivial
• Attempt to remedy the problem before choosing disobedience
• Don’t hide disobedience – make it public, and warn superiors in advance
• Must be willing to accept full legal consequences
• We are taught to disobey orders so that we can be autonomous agents
• Applies to things that will haunt you – NOT trivial

P.47 – 64, 81 – 90 (Wednesday 01 SEPT 2004)

A Higher Moral Standard for the Military – LtCol J. Carl Ficarrotta, USAF (47)

• Military believed to be bound by a higher moral standard

Higher Moral Standard (47)

• Unique moral obligations for military professionals
• Military has good reasons for being bound more strictly to moral standards
• Officers have so much authority that they should be very concerned for the welfare of those who they affect
• Moral requirements due to the unique situations and contexts encountered by military professionals
• Does not indicate how one will act outside a military context
• Combat is high stress and stress can wear away at morals
• Important to be morally steadfast

The Functional Line (50)

• Hackett claims a bad person cannot be a good soldier
• Each member of a unit must be honest with each other
• As applies to the military
• Few understand the level and intensity of cooperation required
• Many functions facilitated by clear moral standards
• Failure can result in bad consequences
• Functional line does not establish that the military professional has special reasons to be good
• Service is unphased if soldier puts himself after service, but gives nothing to charity
• Should be disappointed of situations like these
• No functional reason to be strict outside the military context, however
• Functional reasons for being strict in other contexts
• Moral failure outside the military can hint at potential for failure in the military (cheating on taxes, etc)
• Appearance of morality is functional
• Gains support and funding from the public
• A degree of trust is needed because appearances can be deceiving
• Superior’s behavior affects subordinates – must “set the tone”

Demands of the Role (53)

• Moral requirements may extend beyond what is functionally required
• Obligations are different from others (like a policeman must step in to stop a crime while a normal citizen does not)
• Cheating on taxes, neglecting your children, etc. are expected of everyone, not just those in a military role
• Bound because the public expects a higher standard and military professionals agree to that when joining
• Have to be careful because public sentiment could disappear
• Or worse, it could change to something immoral, in which case morality must be pursued and public sentiment ignored (Nazi Germany)
• Group Image (55) - Lack of morals in one hurts the whole group

Moral Standards and Military Leadership – Leon A. Edney, ADM USN (Ret.) and Henry Chiles, Jr. ADM USN (Ret.) (59)

• A number of people in public and the military both fail ethically
• It is important to maintain our own high standards
• Hold those who fail accountable
• US must hold a high standard to convince allies to remain such
• A breach of ethics is a failure of leadership
• Dual standards are not acceptable
• Stephen Carter’s three requirements for ethical actions on integrity issues
• Discern what is right and wrong based on the facts
• Act to correct wrongs
• Openly justify your actions
• Main Ideas
• Learn from past mistakes
• Confidence in leadership affects military readiness and ability to accomplish the mission
• Actions speak louder than words
• Know what you stand for
• Loyalty is important to both your superiors and your subordinates

Letter from Birmingham City Jail – Dr Martin Luther King Jr. (81)

• Injustice is a threat to justice everywhere
• Nonviolent campaign steps (4)
• Collect facts to determine injustices
• Negotiate
• Self-purification
• Direct Action – seeks to dramatize the issue so it cannot be ignored
• Justice too long delayed is justice denied
• Two types of laws: just and unjust
• Unjust law – out of harmony with moral law
• an unjust law is no law at all
• Just law – man-made code that doesn’t infringe on moral law
• Morals means must be used to attain moral ends

Friday: 03 SEPT 04 – p.25-28, 39-44 (CSME)

USS Vincennes – Friend or Foe – Ed. By Capt Rick Rubel (25)

• USS Vincennes
• Capt Rogers eagerly engaged the small gunboats
• When the incoming target was flagged as potentially hostile, nobody double-checked the petty officer to ensure he had checked the scheduled flights correctly
• The petty officer’s reports were not caught as incorrect by anyone in CIC
• Based on the information the captain had, the shot he took was appropriate

Acting on Conscience: Captain Lawrence Rockwood in Haiti – Written by Dr. Stephen Wrage (39)

• Capt Lawrence had intel about severe abuse in Haitian prisons
• He confronted his chain of command and appropriate officers without success
• He continued up the chain of the command, not giving up
• His efforts eventually resulted in special forces entering a prison, and they confirmed the horrible conditions (skin peeling off, concentration camp like starvation, etc.)

David Underhill – 3^rd Week – Taking an Ethical Stand: Relativism

Monday: 08 Sept 04 – p.25-42 (EMP)

The Relativity of Moral Beliefs and Situations (25)

• Oath does not define what action to take in every case; merely rules out some options
• Leaders are decision makers
• Moral Relativism – morals are dependent upon their acceptance by others
• No one is privileged enough to determine what is right or wrong
• Each person must decide what he believes; “When in Rome, do as Romans do”
• We are responsible for our beliefs so before acting we should make sure we are morally justified (not just accepted by the current culture surrounding us)
• Military officers should be morally sound
• To provide society a good example
• Because it cultivates good leaders

Relativism and Objectivism: Are there Universal Values? (Barton Porter) (39)

• Relativist – values reflect our culture only
• Support this by pointing out that various cultures with different and changing beliefs all believe they are right
• Admirable because it is 1) tolerant of other views; 2) allows freedom to determine own views; 3) uncertainty about what values need to be defended
• Objectivist – acts can be defined as right or wrong, and certain purposes as better than others
• Rejects relativist support saying various beliefs just indicate how clearly a culture sees values
• Just b/c scientists thought the Earth was flat and then round doesn’t mean both are right
• Argues diversity between cultures may be just be the appearance, not reality

The Challenge of Cultural Relativism (James Rachels) (29)

How Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes (29)

• Ex: Eskimos – lived without outside influence for a long time
• When first discovered, they seemed to have little regard for human life
• They shared wives with visitors and neighbors, practiced infanticide, and left the old to die
• Shows how conceptions of right and wrong differ greatly from culture to culture

Cultural Relativism (30)

• Different societies have different morals
• There is no objective standard / universal truth to judge a set of morals with
• It is arrogant to try to judge other cultures

The Consequences of Taking Cultural Relativism Seriously (32)

• We cannot say other’s morals are inferior – could not criticize slavery, anti-Semitism, etc.
• We could decide right wrong based on our society’s culture – stops us from criticizing our own value
• Idea of moral progress is false – changes can’t be for better or worse

Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems (33)

• The belief system may be the cause of what appear to be different values
• For example, if a society thought it was wrong to eat cows because they thought after death your soul stayed in a cow’s body, then the disagreement would be over where the soul goes, not values about whether it is right or not to eat cows

How All Cultures Have Some Values in Common (34)

• Moral rules which are necessary for continued existence will be common to all viable societies

Why Thoughtful People May Be Reluctant To Criticize Other Cultures (35)

• Nervousness about interfering with the social customs of others
• A desire to be tolerant of others
• Do not wish to express contempt towards the society being criticized

What Can Be Learned From Cultural Relativism (36)

• It is dangerous to assume our values are based on an absolute standard
• Keep an open mind
• Herodotus: If anyone were given a choice between which country’s morals they would choose, they would inevitably choose their own country’s morals over any others.

Wednesday: 10 Sept 04 – p.43-46 (EMP); p.165-166 (CS)

Ethical Pluralism: An Alternative to Objectivism and Relativism (Lawrence Lengbeyer) (43)

• Many see objectivism and relativism as the only options
• Many choose relativism because they think it is better to stifle judgment than be indefensibly arrogant
• Objectivism seen as far-fetched, egotistical
• Pluralism – there can be multiple correct answers to an ethical question
• So an ethical question does have incorrect answers, but is not limited to a single correct answer
• Supported by if you ask who was the best baseball player, there can be a number of different, correct answers with good support as well as many wrong answers

Our Values or Theirs? (CAPT Rick Rubel) (165)

• Mission: sell major weapon systems to Saudi Arabia Ministry of Defense … Advantages to US include:
• Save $500M (lower production costs)
• Strengthen diplomatic, military, and economic ties with the ally
• Provide more jobs
• Capt James had little time to put his team together; found out in the airport the US lawyer was female
• One of their best lawyers
• In Saudi Arabia, women cannot conduct business, buy from a store, sit in the front seat, etc.
• It is only 55min until the flight leaves
• By bringing her, he may jeopardize the mission
• By leaving her here, he may misspeak and cost the US
• Capt respects the religious basis that founds these Saudi beliefs
• Wonders whether he should bring her (equal opportunity, after all) or leave her and try to explain that there culture prohibits her from fulfilling her role

David Underhill – Week 4 – Religion and the Military

Monday 13 Sept 2004: P.107-112; 119-123

Religion and Military Ethics (107)

• Morals are influenced by religion in those who believe
• It is dangerous to think morals are sent down directly from God
• This makes it possible for morals to be changed or suspended by God
• Morality seems like it should remain constant
• Some believe God’s intelligence and goodness ensure his actions are moral
• Less threatening because then God does not set and cannot change morals
• Others argue (on the basis of Abraham) that morality has nothing to do with religion
• The Readings
• Discuss the proper relationship between religious convictions and moral obligations
• Cook: argues religious beliefs help form and explain the basis of morality
• Rachels: argues morality defined by religion is paradoxical based on Greek scholars
• Eberle: defends morality and religion by attacking Plato’s argument
• Religion may not be the sole basis for actions by military personnel

Reality Check: The Human and Spiritual Needs of Soldiers (Chaplain Brinsfield) (109)

• Soldiers are reluctant to discuss religion because it is perceived to be very personal
• Strong observance of religion is perceived as being detrimental to the unit
• Most religions worship a deity though some promote wisdom, etc.
• Religion has become more diverse in the US: 45 to 2,000 specific religions in 60 years
• Most important intangible assets: morale, élan, espirit de corps, the will to combat, and the will to win
• Morale most influenced by leading by example and unit cohesion
• Moral is an “expendable commodity”
• Brits in WWII noticed soldiers peak ability was the first 90 days of combat
• After that, it declines until the soldier is useless (around 140 days)
• 10-15% of casualties were psychiatric casualties
• Four elements of support which help to cope with combat stress
• Rightness of the war; unit cohesion from hard training, sports, and rewards; selfless leadership; and a desire for religious fortification before battle
• Manchester on Okinawa (USMC): through prayer he realized he was there to fight for his comrades and a greater purpose than himself
• A soldier’s ability to draw on his religion is an “undeniable component of readiness”

Does Morality Depend on Religion? (James Rachels) (119)

Connection between morality and religion

• People often associate religion with morality and therefore call on priests to give ethical advice
• A world without religion and a higher power lacks values according to Russel in A Free Man’s Worship

The Divine Command Theory (120)

• Commanded by God means moral, and the reverse means immoral
• Pros: solves the relativism / objectivism debate
• Right and wrong is objective; those who don’t obey will be held accountable at death
• Problems
• Cannot apply to atheists
• Main problem (Plato) – Is conduct right b/c the gods cmd it, or do the gods cmd it b/c it is right? … both problematic:
• If it is right because god commands it, then it is arbitrary because god could have commanded the opposite – makes it impossible to label god as good
• If god commands it because it is right, then there exists a standard of right and wrong, which means morals cannot be defined in term’s of god’s will
• Many religious people believe the latter because it would be impious to do otherwise
• Some theologians say the latter is impious as it doesn’t allow morals to be defined by god’s will
• Some theologians reject this however (see below)

The Theory of Natural Law (122)

• Says morals are decided by reason
• Argues that god made natural law and us rational
• This allows non-believers to use reason to determine morals just as easily as believers
• Morality, like science, is autonomous of religion with its own way of being understood
• Religious people believe the understandings of morality as being revealed by god
• Allows non-believers and believers to participate in the same moral universe

Wednesday 15 Sept 2004: P.113-118, 125-129

Religion and Morality: Exploring the Connections (Cook) (113)

Historical Observations

• Western religions honor Moses and God’s revelation to him
• Many look to religion to know how to act morally
• Many believe god grounds morals (without him, anything is allowed)
• Many expect religious leaders to live up to higher standards
• The Historical Problem: morals are arbitrary if determined by God and if they come from rational thought then it transcends rational morals

Religion and Rationality: Religious Synthesis (114)

• Natural law says (see previous notes); allows believers and non-believers to participate in morality
• Those who developed arguments about this synthesis and natural law have been prosecuted in their own time
• Author believes religion will adopt forms of natural law for other principles as well so that non-believers can conform too

The Contribution of Religion to Morality (115)

• Claims that religion must be the basis of morality threatens morality itself and is not well-grounded in religious thinking
• Religion has an impact on the moral life of individuals through
• The “sort of person” one is – religion tries to influence how children are raised and how people think about things like love
• Reasons for being moral – gratitude to god
• Religion and the interpretation of the circumstances of action – situations described in the Bible form foundations for actions now
• Religion and morality have complex relationships
• Religion profoundly impacts those who follow it
• Natural law allows religion to share its morality with non-believers

A Philosophical Defense of Divine Command Theory (Eberle) (125)

• Euthyphro Dilemma – some use it refute DCT; Eberle claims it only refutes a caricature of DCT
• Does god command what is right arbitrarily or based on a universal standard he is passing down
• Since god is perfect and loving he would only issue moral orders
• As a result, DCT is founded because the orders are not arbitrary because god would never order you to do the wrong thing

Friday 17 Sept 2004: P.137-144 (CSME)

A Shipboard Request for Abortion (Rubel, Martini) (137)

• Background: A CO can grant emergency if an immediate family member is terminally sick or has been killed; the CO can reject a valid request (particularly if it interferes with operations); transportation logistics may take some time to get the person home
• Abortion: Supreme court has ruled it legal, but law does not allow military doctors to perform elective abortions
• SecNav Shipboard Pregnancy Regs: will serve until 20^th week; must return by 4mo. after delivery; pilots grounded
• The ship is nearing a foreign port visit in four days and a 3^rd class petty officer requests emergency leave to go back to the US and have an abortion (requested via chit)
• Chit approved by all below the CO who is deeply religious and opposed to abortion
• The CO tells her that the request doesn’t quite meet the regs and asks why she wants the abortion
• She says she is only 19 and wants to attend college and trying to raise a child alone would hurt her future

Altering the Uniform (Gunther) (139)

• An Air Force officer (orthodox Jew) sues to be allowed to wear a yarmulke with his uniform
• Supreme Court Justices reject his claims and forbid him to wear it, citing the fact the USAF made a decision not based on religion, but on uniformity and professionalism
• Other justices dissented, saying his yarmulke had no impact on those around, and therefore he should be allowed to wear it

David Underhill - Week 5 – Consequential Reasoning

Monday 20 Sept 2004: P.137-148 (EMP)

Utilitarianism and the Greatest Good (137)

• Utilitarianism – always act so that harm caused is minimized
• Described by Hutchinson, Smith, and Hume but popularized by Jeremy Bentham
• Bentham argued it should supplant any other moral theories
• He felt laws should be evaluated with it (does it net more good than any alternative?)
• He was thought to be radical; further this thought by creating a public University of London and having himself entombed there
• Felt the concept of “rights” was illusory
• Thought morality should be like a science (logical)
• Created a kind of calculus with seven variables to determine which action was best for the whole
• Required everyone affected must derive some benefit (prevents the formula from saying slavery was good, etc)
• John Stuart Mill – Bentham’s godson; most influential English philosopher in the 19^th century; espoused this theory
• The next article (by him) defends utilitarian reasoning from arguments from 19^th century critics
• Argues God is the ultimate utilitarian
• Tries to divorce utilitarian reasoning from its simplistic forms, saying actions must also be judged on the quality of their goodness
• Addresses a dispute over the Principle of Utility

from Utilitarianism (1861) (John Stuart Mill) (141)

• Utilitarianism says actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness
• Pleasure must be measured in quality as well as quantity
• Most do not wish lower themselves even to be satisfied
• It is “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
• The young often have noble intentions which degrade because they are tender capacities
• They change to inferior pleasures because they do not have the time or access to better ones
• They still prefer the higher road, they just can’t take it
• Pleasure and pain are heterogeneous and it is hard to decide whether a pleasure outweighs an accompanying pain
• Greatest happiness principle – an existence exempt from pain and as rich as possible in pleasure; a standard for morality
• The Golden Rule has the spirit of utilitarianism
• Utilitarian Morality – 1) Laws and social arrangements should place happiness of every individual in harmony with the interest of the whole

2) Education and opinion should establish an association between happiness and good for the whole

• Motivation does not affect whether something is good or not in utilitarianism morality
• The multiplication of happiness is the object of virtue
• Some believe utility makes men appear cold and unsympathetic
• Not true because utilitarian are aware there are other qualities besides virtue
• The best proof of good character is good actions
• Utilitarianism is not a godless doctrine – if you believe god desires all his creatures to be happy, then god is a utilitarian
• Withholding facts can be good (from a malicious person, or from someone deathly ill) – can prevent harm
• The principle of utility must be good for weighing conflicting utilities and marking the better
• Christianity cannot guide utilitarianism because there is not always time to read through Christian texts
• Morality has been passed down and is being improved; will never be quite perfect
• We require theories to help apply the principle of morality

Wednesday 22 Sept 2004: P.149-153 (EMP)

Utilitarianism (149)

• Nonreligious ancestors of 20^th century secular humanists – optimistic
• Utilitarians act not in the name of justice but for the greatest good
• Only punish if it serves as a deterrent
• The threat of punishment is important; it must be used because of human failing
• Consequentialist Principle – teleological aspect à rightness determined by results (ends, not means, count)
• Utility Principle – hedonic aspect à pleasure is the only good, pain is the only evil
• Hedonic Calculus – quantitative score for an experience obtained by summing seven aspects of pleasure/painful experience
• Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Nearness, Fruitfulness, Purity, Extent
• Simplistic; called pig-philosophy because a happy pig > dissatisfied Socrates
• Eudemonistic (Mill’s ver) – defines happiness by types of pleasures (high – intel, creativity, spirit; lower – eat, drink, sex, rest)
• Lower pleasures more intensely gratifying but too much leads to pain
• Higher pleasures are superior

Two types of of Utilitarianism (151)

• Act-utilitarianism – an act is only right if it results in as much good as any other alternative
• Rule-utilitarianism – act right only if it is required by a rule whose acceptance would lead to > utility for society
• Debated whether this is valid because you can always do more good by going beyond the rules
• Levels of rules – three levels of rules to guide actions
• 1 (top priority)) remainder rule – when no other rule applies, use your best judgment
• 2) conflict-resolving rules
• 3) utility-maximizing rules (must always be followed)
• Negative responsibility – you are responsible for the actions you take and don’t take

Hiroshima: The First Use of Nuclear Weapons (1861) (Velasquez, Rostonkowski) (59) (CSME)

David Underhill – 27 Sept to 01 Oct 04 (Week 6) – P.159-181; Case Study p.3-6 – Kant

Kantian Ethics and the Basis of Duty (159)

• Kant – German philosopher; his published works is generally very dense and hard to comprehend
• His notes for students and public essays are much easier to grasp
• Believed moral and mathematical reasoning were similar
• “The starry heavens above, the Moral Law within.”
• We can discover the secrets of nature which allows us to devise rules and most importantly allows us to choose to follow the rules
• Explores this in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
• Believed a revolutionary thought was needed to understand our morals from the external world so we could judge them
• Believed human reason was not passive but active in developing our understanding of the world
• Reason is used to determine how we react to desires, and so is associated with morality
• Two desires – to fulfill duty or individual desires
• Those who fulfill duty are moral
• His hometown was completely leveled in WWII and then rebuilt by Soviets and used as their nuclear submarine HQ

Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (165)

• Actions must conform with duty to be considered moral
• Even if actions conform with duty, an individual is not necessarily moral – depends on their motivation
• Only moral if it is done “for the sake of duty”
• An individual must choose to have a duty and then perform it
• Formula of Autonomy – to be free, an individual must act on their own, not due to incentives
• Three forms of the categorical imperative
• Formula of Universal Law – an individual must act on universal obligations prior to personal desires
• Individuals should not exempt themselves from rules which apply to all
• Formula of Humanity as an End Itself – don’t use people for your own ends
• Kingdom of Ends – act like everyone is a lawgiver and citizen in the moral community
• Ex: lying is bad because it prevents other from having all the available information which they can use in order to determine, through Reason, what is right
• Must not only not lie, but must tell the truth
• You should not hurt a person in a burning car, but you must take action to help them
• Inaction can be immoral too
• Justifies military intervention for humanitarian reasons
• The Reasonable ordering of desire and practical experience in our world results in duty (the laws of morality)

A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics (O’Neill) (177)

• Author intends to simplify Kant by only presenting the Formula of the End and comparing it to utilitarianism
• Each of our acts reflects a maxim (the principle on which one acts)
• Whenever we act intentionally, it is due to a maxim we hold
• Using someone as a means is an action that they could not consent to in principle
• Done through manipulation (not sharing all the facts) or coercion
• Kantians compare only the acts which have been proposed – don’t try to consider every possible act
• If an act is required to fulfill duty, it is obligatory
• As long as the act is just, it is moral – it does not have to be the best act possible
• Limits of Kantian Ethics: Intentions and Results
• Utilitarianism has an unlimited scope but its precision is limited by how much information is available
• Smaller scope – only assesses intentional acts and can only apply to individuals as well as groups with policies/rules
• Kant’s ethics also focuses on maxims rather than results
• Respect for Life
• Kant: people are not ends and so their lives have a high value
• This does not mean they will preserve it though – Kant acts can be just and reasonable while not providing the best healthcare … also, individuals may take pains in order to not use others, making society an unhappy place
• Utilitarianism does not value human life specifically; it needs it, but allows for it to be lost for the greater good

Leave No One Behind (Capt Rubel) (3)

• CDR Davis is in charge of a helo rescue squadron
• A man goes overboard in almost zero visibility, 45kt winds, and 25ft swells
• The rescue helo is sent but is taken down
• Should CDR Davis send a second helo or cut losses?

David Underhill – Week 7 – Character and Virtue: Aristotle

Monday and Wednesday: 03 Oct to 05 Oct 04 (Week 7) – P.183-200

Aristotle and the Ethics of Virtue (183)

• Kant and Mill were both concerned about understanding the foundations of morality
• Aristotle could a theory that could be mechanically applied
• Kant’s demands are so stiff that even he questions if any have lived up to them
• Eudaimonia is good for a man – translates loosely to happiness or human flourishing à a life of excellence
• Courage is described as the mean between the vices of cowardice (deficiency) and recklessness (excess)

The Moral Virtues (187)

• Definition of Human Life
• 1) Belongs to the rational part of man – active (exercising reason) or passive (following reason)
• 2) Expression in Actions
• Excellence – 1) produces a good state and 2) enable one to perform one’s function well
• Virtue in one makes one good and enables him to perform well
• Achieved through a mean – too much or little destroy perfection
• Goodness is characterized by feeling the right amount at the right time on the right occasion with the right motive
• Extreme Rules – hard to hit the bullseye so…
• Keep away from the worse extreme – one is always more dangerous
• Note the errors one is most likely to make
• Always guard against pleasure and pleasant things

Habit and Virtue (Aristotle) (193)

• Types of Virtue: Virtue of thought or of character
• Character and Virtue comes out of habit
• Natural conditions cannot be changed by habit (rocks always roll downhill)
• Natural capacities are not from habit
• Legislators concentrate on habit – citizens are made good through habituation
• Virtue and vice are from good and bad acts
• Right Sort of Habituation
• Actions should express correct reason
• Habits must avoid excess and deficiency
• Pleasure and pain are important to habits
• Virtue is concerned with pleasure and pain
• Pleasure causes us to act, pain causes us to abstain
• Virtues are concerned with feelings and actions and these all imply pleasure or pain
• Corrective treatment uses pleasure and pain
• The soul is related to what makes it better or worse
• 3 Objs of choice – fine, expedient, pleasant; 3 Objs of avoidance – shameful, harmful, painful
• A good person is correct
• Inquiries must be about pleasure because all feel it from birth and it is important for our actions
• It is harder to fight pleasure than emotion
• How one can become good without being good already
• Conformity vs. Understanding
• It is possible to produce something correct randomly so one must learn to understand and then perform well
• Crafts vs. Virtues … Craft is a product; A craft requires only knowledge
• Human must be in the right state to be virtuous – 1) must know his act is virtuous; 2) must decide on them for them; 3) must do them from a firm position
• Virtue requires habit, not just theory

Courage (Aristotle) (197)

• Courage – concerned with feelings of fear / confidence (particularly death in battle) (6)
• Battle is the greatest and most noble danger
• He who is fearless in face of a noble death is brave
• Not someone who is confident before being flogged, etc
• 7 … There are fears beyond human strength – all fear them
• Brave men will be virtuous and face even the things they fear – whether they are beyond human str or not
• A man who exceeds in fear is a coward
• 8 … Five kinds of courage improperly so called … five kinds of courage:
• 1) Courage of the citizen soldier (true courage); 2) experience with regard to particular facts; 3) Passion; 4) sanguine people (not really brave – just confident); 5) people ignorant of danger (only appear brave)

Friday – 07 Oct 04 (Week 7, cont.) – P.201-207

Friendship (Aristotle) (201)

• Bk 8, Ch1 – “two going together” are better than one; friendship is noble
• Bk 8, Ch2 – Motives for love: 1)
• Do not love lifeless things because 1) they cannot return affection; 2) we do not wish their good
• Some friends are made out of utility – not for pleasures sake and dissolves when utility declines/varies
• Perfect friendship is the friendship of people who are good and alike in virtue and wish each other well
• Lasts as long as their goodness
• Naturally permanent
• Rare because people like this are rare
• Bk 8, Ch4 – Friendships between parent/child, etc are unequal and therefore a different kind of friendship
• Bk 9, Ch3 – It is not unreasonable to break friendships if the friend changes
• Do not treat past friends as enemies – show some consideration

The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle (205) (J. Glenn Gray)

• Comrades have lived through hard and dangerous experiences which make them devoted to each other for life
• Camaraderie is stronger than friendship and rarely can anything stronger be attained
• Essential difference is the suppression of self in comradeship
• Friends can endure war’s horror without losing zest for life
• A lost friend’s companionship is not replaceable

David Underhill – 11 Oct 04 (Week 8) – P.195-198 (CSME) – Loyalty vs. Mission

EE Cheating Scandal (CBS News) (195)

• Some mids got the EE test the night before the exam
• They spread it to 80% of those taking the test
• Afterwards, 24 were eventually expelled for cheating (some not until a year later)
• Huge, life-altering changes
• no longer in the naval service
• honor compromised
• much less significant careers on the whole

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)

1. There are things within your power (opinion) and beyond your power (body, property, reputation, office)
2. Desire demands one to achieve certain things
3. Objects are the “merest trifles” and you can bear their loss (whether they be a cup or a person)
4. Think about what you do before acting (increases safety)
5. People are upset by their own views only – do not try to make others feel as you do
6. Do not be happy at others excellence; make their excellence yours (“I have a handsome horse”)
7. If called on by a superior, go immediately and without hesitation for everything you leave behind
8. Wish for things to happen as they do
9. Do not allow problems to affect your will
10. If troubled, figure out what you can do to overcome it
11. Possess your things as if they are not yours so that if they are taken you can say they are restored, not lost
12. Do not allow a servant to disturb you because he has no powers
13. Do not let others think you are intelligent
14. Wish for nothing outside of your power if you wish to free
15. If you can avoid taking worldly pleasures you can rule with the Gods
16. Accommodate those who suffer but do not join them (internally at least)
17. Act your role in life
18. I can derive advantage from anything that happens
19. To be free, ignore things outside of your power
20. Do not allow anything but your own opinions to provoke you
21. Daily consider death (but do not desire it)
22. Persistence earns admiration; caving in earns ridicule
23. If you pay attention to external forces, you will ruin your life
24. Hold status through maintaining honor
25. Pay the price for goods for they are to your advantage
26. If affected by something, remember how it would have affected you if it occurred to someone else
27. There is no evil nature
28. Do not speak your mind to “revilers” (do not criticize?)
29. Understand the perquisites and consequences of any action you take
30. “Duties are measured by relations” – another cannot hurt you
31. Withdraw yourself from things outside your own power
32. You should be indifferent to all events because you can use all of them
33. Speak concisely
34. Do no allow pleasure to subdue you
35. Act publicly – do not fear those who criticize you (because they are wrong)
36. Be courteous to your host
37. Do not try to do more than you can
38. Be careful not to hurt your mind
39. There is a measure of how many possessions you may have
40. Young women are flattered to be called mistresses; they keep their hope in their beauty and jewelry
41. Focus on the mind – do not spend much time on the body
42. Those you perceive to be wrong still believe themselves to be right
43. Everything has two handles – one which can be used, another which cannot
44. One cannot be superior due to wealth, eloquence, etc – a person is not made of those things
45. Do not judge appearances (motive is what counts)
46. Display your principles through action
47. Do not brag about your strengths
48. A philosopher looks to oneself for all help and harm – never to others
49. Interpret and analyze – do not just read or listen
50. 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.”