Check out this story
Here.
Another important retired general is speaking out about the war in Iraq and against our government's policy therein. (Specifically the white house and congress).
The article does well to mention Gen. Shensheki as some background.
I wonder how many more Generals will speak out.
Sen. McCain makes an interesting point suggesting that the General in question should have spoken out in this way while on active duty or else he should have resigned (if he felt he couldn't have), rather than wait until he's retired.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Surtax for the war...?
Check out the story Here.
It's all over the news sites and blogs.
I must admit this really is a novel and fascinating idea. For contextual purposes, it should be noted that we had similiar taxes in Vietnam and WWII (and other conflicts in our nation's history).
Fascinating idea. I'm still undecided how I feel about it. One thing, off the cuff, that I do find appealing about it is that it raises the bar on the jus ad bellum constraints for our nation. It essentially says, "if you want to go to war (and you believe it is important enough, morally neccessary, etc.), then you have to step up and pay for it." hmmm...
What do you think? We had a rousing debate about it in the department just the other day.
It's all over the news sites and blogs.
I must admit this really is a novel and fascinating idea. For contextual purposes, it should be noted that we had similiar taxes in Vietnam and WWII (and other conflicts in our nation's history).
Fascinating idea. I'm still undecided how I feel about it. One thing, off the cuff, that I do find appealing about it is that it raises the bar on the jus ad bellum constraints for our nation. It essentially says, "if you want to go to war (and you believe it is important enough, morally neccessary, etc.), then you have to step up and pay for it." hmmm...
What do you think? We had a rousing debate about it in the department just the other day.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
NPR story on moral reasoning and Iraq
A philosopher from Oxford, Daniel Robinson, discusses how to apply various normative ethical theories (namely, Deontology, Virtue Ethics, and Utilitarianism) in relation specifically to Iraq.
It's actually really well done. It was on NPR.
Here's the link.
Check it out.
It's actually really well done. It was on NPR.
Here's the link.
Check it out.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Ahmadinejad's visit to ground zero (didn't happen... but...)
I'm sure many of you have been following the story of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to the U.S. He was given the opportunity to speak at Columbia University (although he was slammed pretty hard when he was introduced by Columbia's President) and initially he was planning on visiting the Ground Zero site. This suggestion (that he'd visit the World Trade Center site) caused quite a stir. Should we allow him to visit the site?
If you don't know much about Ahmadinejad, he is an outspoken, vocal critic of US policy and the non-Islamic West in general. He is a holocaust denier as well. There's lots of reasons to not like this guy.
Fortunately, he backed down and decided not to visit the site... but what if he hadn't? That's the question I'm after: what should we have done if had pushed it and wanted to see the site? What's your call? Say you are the mayor of NYC or some other position that could make a power play on this decision. If he wanted to visit the site (as thousands of people do all the time -- I've been there three different times), should we allow him to?
This is a tough one. We've been debating it here in the philosophy department all week and we are rather split on it. What are your thoughts?
If you don't know much about Ahmadinejad, he is an outspoken, vocal critic of US policy and the non-Islamic West in general. He is a holocaust denier as well. There's lots of reasons to not like this guy.
Fortunately, he backed down and decided not to visit the site... but what if he hadn't? That's the question I'm after: what should we have done if had pushed it and wanted to see the site? What's your call? Say you are the mayor of NYC or some other position that could make a power play on this decision. If he wanted to visit the site (as thousands of people do all the time -- I've been there three different times), should we allow him to?
This is a tough one. We've been debating it here in the philosophy department all week and we are rather split on it. What are your thoughts?
Woman has her breasts removed
Check out this story here.
Turns out this lady, Lindsay Avner, decided to have her breasts removed so that she has no future risk of breast cancer.
This one seems to spark passionate positions on both sides. Where do you come down?
Ethically, is it right for her to do this? Is it acceptable?
Turns out this lady, Lindsay Avner, decided to have her breasts removed so that she has no future risk of breast cancer.
This one seems to spark passionate positions on both sides. Where do you come down?
Ethically, is it right for her to do this? Is it acceptable?
Monday, September 24, 2007
The future lies in Asia?
A good read on the future of international affairs. Notice the use of "post-national West"...
The New York Times
September 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Lost at Sea
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
THE ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century.
While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries — in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea — have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic.
The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new “big decks” from Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board.
In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is “sea denial”: dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like. Such dissuasion is the subtle, high-tech end of military asymmetry, as opposed to the crude, low-tech end that we’ve seen with homemade bombs in Iraq. Whether or not China ever has a motive to challenge America, it will increasingly have the capacity to do so.
Certainly, the billions of dollars spent on Iraq (a war I supported) would not have gone for the expensive new air, naval and space systems necessary to retain our relative edge against a future peer competitor like China. But some of it would have.
China’s military expansion, with a defense budget growing by double digits for the 19th consecutive year, is part of a broader, regional trend. Russia — a Pacific as well as a European nation, we should remember — is right behind the United States and China as the world’s biggest military spender. Japan, with 119 warships, including 20 diesel-electric submarines, boasts a naval force nearly three times larger than Britain’s. (It is soon to be four times larger: 13 to 19 of Britain’s 44 remaining large ships are set to be mothballed by the Labor government.)
India’s Navy could be the third-largest in the world in a few years as it becomes more active throughout the Indian Ocean, from the Mozambique Channel to the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. South Korea, Singapore and Pakistan all spend higher percentages of their gross domestic products on defense than do Britain and France — which are by far Europe’s most serious military-minded nations.
The twin trends of a rising Asia and a politically crumbling Middle East will most likely lead to a naval emphasis on the Indian Ocean and its surrounding seas, the sites of the “brown water” choke points of world commerce — the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the Bab el Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea, and Malacca. These narrow bodies of water will become increasingly susceptible to terrorism, even as they become more and more clogged with tankers bringing Middle Eastern oil to the growing middle classes of India and China. The surrounding seas will then become home territory to Indian and Chinese warships, protecting their own tanker routes.
To wit, China is giving Pakistan $200 million to build a deep-water port at Gwadar, just 390 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing is also trying to work with the military junta in Myanmar to create another deep-water port on the Bay of Bengal. It has even hinted at financing a canal across the 30-mile Isthmus of Kra in Thailand that would open a new connection between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
Oddly enough, the Pacific, as an organizing principle in world military affairs, will also encroach upon Africa. It’s no secret that a major reason for the Pentagon’s decision to establish its new Africa Command is to contain and keep an eye on China’s growing web of development projects across the sub-Saharan regions.
Still, measuring budgets, deployments, and sea and air “platforms” does not quite indicate just how much the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Military power rests substantially on the willingness to use it: perhaps less so in war than in peacetime as a means of leverage and coercion.
That, in turn, requires a vigorous nationalism — something that is far more noticeable right now in Asia than in parts of an increasingly post-national West. As the Yale political scientist Paul Bracken notes in his book “Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age,” the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons, unlike the Western powers that seem almost ashamed of needing them. Likewise, the right to produce nuclear arms is something that unites Iranians, regardless of their views of the clerical regime.
Mending relations with Europe is only a partial answer to America’s problems in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, since Europe itself continues to turn away from military power. This trend was quickened by the Iraq war, which has helped legitimize nascent European pacifism. People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
Meanwhile, Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races. Despite warming economic ties between Japan and China, and between Japan and South Korea, the Japanese and Chinese have fought wars of words over possession of the Senkaku (or, as the Chinese have it, Diaoyutai) Islands in the East China Sea; just as Japanese and South Koreans have over possession of the Takeshima Islands (Tokdo Islands to the Koreans) in the Sea of Japan. These are classic territorial disputes, stirring deep emotions of the sorts that often led to war in early modern Europe.
Despite these tensions, the United States should also be concerned about the alternative possibility of a China-Japan entente. Some of China’s recent diplomatic approaches to Japan have been couched in a new tone of respect and camaraderie, as it attempts to tame Japan’s push toward rearmament and thus to reduce the regional influence of the United States.
Asia’s military-economic vigor is the product of united political, economic and military elites. In Asia, politics often does stop at the water’s edge. In a post-George W. Bush America, if we do not find a way to agree on basic precepts, Iraq may indeed turn out to have been the event that signaled our military decline.
Preventing that will require continued high military expenditures combined with an unrelenting multilateralism of a sort we have not pursued since the 1990s. In the vast oceanic spaces bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, air, sea and space power will be paramount both as means of deterrence and of guarding the sea lanes. A global power at peace still requires a navy and an air force deployed as far forward as possible. That costs money. Even with the gargantuan cost of Iraq, our defense budget is still under 5 percent of our gross domestic product, low by historical standards.
Furthermore, the very vitality of nation-states in the Pacific and Indian Oceans will take us back to an older world of traditional statecraft, in which we will need to tirelessly leverage allies and seek cooperation from competitors. Thus we should take advantage of the rising risk of terrorism and piracy in order to draw the Chinese and Indian Navies into joint patrols of choke points and tanker routes.
Still, we should be careful about leveraging Japan and India too overtly against China. The Japanese continue to be distrusted throughout Asia, particularly in the Korean Peninsula, because of the horrors of World War II. As for India, as a number of policy experts leaders there told me on a recent visit: India will remain non-aligned, with a tilt toward the United States. But any official alliance would compromise India’s own shaky relationship with China. Subtlety must be a keystone to our policy. We have to draw China in, not gang up against it.
Because we remain the only major player in the Pacific and Indian Oceans without territorial ambitions or disputes with its neighbors, indispensability, rather than dominance, must be our goal. That, continuing deep into the 21st century, would be a stirring achievement.
Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, is the author of “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea and on the Ground.”
The New York Times
September 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Lost at Sea
By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
THE ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century.
While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries — in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea — have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic.
The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new “big decks” from Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board.
In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is “sea denial”: dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like. Such dissuasion is the subtle, high-tech end of military asymmetry, as opposed to the crude, low-tech end that we’ve seen with homemade bombs in Iraq. Whether or not China ever has a motive to challenge America, it will increasingly have the capacity to do so.
Certainly, the billions of dollars spent on Iraq (a war I supported) would not have gone for the expensive new air, naval and space systems necessary to retain our relative edge against a future peer competitor like China. But some of it would have.
China’s military expansion, with a defense budget growing by double digits for the 19th consecutive year, is part of a broader, regional trend. Russia — a Pacific as well as a European nation, we should remember — is right behind the United States and China as the world’s biggest military spender. Japan, with 119 warships, including 20 diesel-electric submarines, boasts a naval force nearly three times larger than Britain’s. (It is soon to be four times larger: 13 to 19 of Britain’s 44 remaining large ships are set to be mothballed by the Labor government.)
India’s Navy could be the third-largest in the world in a few years as it becomes more active throughout the Indian Ocean, from the Mozambique Channel to the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. South Korea, Singapore and Pakistan all spend higher percentages of their gross domestic products on defense than do Britain and France — which are by far Europe’s most serious military-minded nations.
The twin trends of a rising Asia and a politically crumbling Middle East will most likely lead to a naval emphasis on the Indian Ocean and its surrounding seas, the sites of the “brown water” choke points of world commerce — the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, the Bab el Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea, and Malacca. These narrow bodies of water will become increasingly susceptible to terrorism, even as they become more and more clogged with tankers bringing Middle Eastern oil to the growing middle classes of India and China. The surrounding seas will then become home territory to Indian and Chinese warships, protecting their own tanker routes.
To wit, China is giving Pakistan $200 million to build a deep-water port at Gwadar, just 390 nautical miles from the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing is also trying to work with the military junta in Myanmar to create another deep-water port on the Bay of Bengal. It has even hinted at financing a canal across the 30-mile Isthmus of Kra in Thailand that would open a new connection between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
Oddly enough, the Pacific, as an organizing principle in world military affairs, will also encroach upon Africa. It’s no secret that a major reason for the Pentagon’s decision to establish its new Africa Command is to contain and keep an eye on China’s growing web of development projects across the sub-Saharan regions.
Still, measuring budgets, deployments, and sea and air “platforms” does not quite indicate just how much the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Military power rests substantially on the willingness to use it: perhaps less so in war than in peacetime as a means of leverage and coercion.
That, in turn, requires a vigorous nationalism — something that is far more noticeable right now in Asia than in parts of an increasingly post-national West. As the Yale political scientist Paul Bracken notes in his book “Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age,” the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons, unlike the Western powers that seem almost ashamed of needing them. Likewise, the right to produce nuclear arms is something that unites Iranians, regardless of their views of the clerical regime.
Mending relations with Europe is only a partial answer to America’s problems in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, since Europe itself continues to turn away from military power. This trend was quickened by the Iraq war, which has helped legitimize nascent European pacifism. People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
Meanwhile, Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races. Despite warming economic ties between Japan and China, and between Japan and South Korea, the Japanese and Chinese have fought wars of words over possession of the Senkaku (or, as the Chinese have it, Diaoyutai) Islands in the East China Sea; just as Japanese and South Koreans have over possession of the Takeshima Islands (Tokdo Islands to the Koreans) in the Sea of Japan. These are classic territorial disputes, stirring deep emotions of the sorts that often led to war in early modern Europe.
Despite these tensions, the United States should also be concerned about the alternative possibility of a China-Japan entente. Some of China’s recent diplomatic approaches to Japan have been couched in a new tone of respect and camaraderie, as it attempts to tame Japan’s push toward rearmament and thus to reduce the regional influence of the United States.
Asia’s military-economic vigor is the product of united political, economic and military elites. In Asia, politics often does stop at the water’s edge. In a post-George W. Bush America, if we do not find a way to agree on basic precepts, Iraq may indeed turn out to have been the event that signaled our military decline.
Preventing that will require continued high military expenditures combined with an unrelenting multilateralism of a sort we have not pursued since the 1990s. In the vast oceanic spaces bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, air, sea and space power will be paramount both as means of deterrence and of guarding the sea lanes. A global power at peace still requires a navy and an air force deployed as far forward as possible. That costs money. Even with the gargantuan cost of Iraq, our defense budget is still under 5 percent of our gross domestic product, low by historical standards.
Furthermore, the very vitality of nation-states in the Pacific and Indian Oceans will take us back to an older world of traditional statecraft, in which we will need to tirelessly leverage allies and seek cooperation from competitors. Thus we should take advantage of the rising risk of terrorism and piracy in order to draw the Chinese and Indian Navies into joint patrols of choke points and tanker routes.
Still, we should be careful about leveraging Japan and India too overtly against China. The Japanese continue to be distrusted throughout Asia, particularly in the Korean Peninsula, because of the horrors of World War II. As for India, as a number of policy experts leaders there told me on a recent visit: India will remain non-aligned, with a tilt toward the United States. But any official alliance would compromise India’s own shaky relationship with China. Subtlety must be a keystone to our policy. We have to draw China in, not gang up against it.
Because we remain the only major player in the Pacific and Indian Oceans without territorial ambitions or disputes with its neighbors, indispensability, rather than dominance, must be our goal. That, continuing deep into the 21st century, would be a stirring achievement.
Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic and a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, is the author of “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea and on the Ground.”
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Stranger or your Dog: REDUX
I've made this post now three times. Now that we've got a new crop of students, it's fun to throw it out there again. It always produces interesting answers. For my old bloggers, I'm curious if your answers to any of these questions has changed. (And, of course, if they have changed, why do you think that is?)
So here it is...
In the following scenario imagine you are in some weird situation wherein you can only save one of the the two options given in each question. There is no possible way to save both, nor would sacrificing yourself help in any way towards saving them and they will both die. If you do nothing, they will both die (and, I suppose, that is an option). You know that when you save one of them, the other will most certainly die (or be destroyed). Assume there is no other relevant information than that given for each question (i.e., in the child or adult question, assume they have the same status otherwise in all ways that may affect your decision, the only difference being that one is a child and one is an adult). You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother/sister
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a jellyfish
k) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
l) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time (in your favorite genre)
m) A young child you don't know or a 95-year old adult that you know well
n) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
o) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not technically brain dead).
p) Lassie or Hitler
q) 1 of your fellow soldiers from your unit or 25 injured enemy soldiers who have surrendered
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different): 1) what do you think you would actually do and 2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through q) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
I think what is most fascinating about this exercise is that we are able to even answers these questions. That reveals, to me anyway, that we have incredible reserves of intuitions on these weird moral questions. Why is that? The difficult thing to do (and the profitable thing to do) is to try to "mine" those intuitions and see what is guiding them. Again: why do you answer the way you do on these??
Have fun.
So here it is...
In the following scenario imagine you are in some weird situation wherein you can only save one of the the two options given in each question. There is no possible way to save both, nor would sacrificing yourself help in any way towards saving them and they will both die. If you do nothing, they will both die (and, I suppose, that is an option). You know that when you save one of them, the other will most certainly die (or be destroyed). Assume there is no other relevant information than that given for each question (i.e., in the child or adult question, assume they have the same status otherwise in all ways that may affect your decision, the only difference being that one is a child and one is an adult). You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother/sister
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a jellyfish
k) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
l) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time (in your favorite genre)
m) A young child you don't know or a 95-year old adult that you know well
n) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
o) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not technically brain dead).
p) Lassie or Hitler
q) 1 of your fellow soldiers from your unit or 25 injured enemy soldiers who have surrendered
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different): 1) what do you think you would actually do and 2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through q) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
I think what is most fascinating about this exercise is that we are able to even answers these questions. That reveals, to me anyway, that we have incredible reserves of intuitions on these weird moral questions. Why is that? The difficult thing to do (and the profitable thing to do) is to try to "mine" those intuitions and see what is guiding them. Again: why do you answer the way you do on these??
Have fun.
Stretched troops...
Check out this political cartoon:
Any thoughts?
Lots of underlying issues here:
If the situation in Iraq really does boil down to a civil war between different internal factions, is it our place to intervene? What's the right call here? Certainly France aided us in our revolutionary war, but should they have? How about our civil war? What's the difference?
This also brings up the question, in general, about "imposing" democracy on a people. I'm sure you've all heard it before, but there's this argument tossed around from time to time that contends that a people have to rise up and make their own democracy when they are ready for it -- that is cannot be forced on them. Is this the case? Always? What if a people are incapable of gaining democracy for themselves although they want it? How can we tell if this is the case? Is it bigoted of us to assume democracy is the best form of government for all people?
If the situation in Iraq really does boil down to a civil war between different internal factions, is it our place to intervene? What's the right call here? Certainly France aided us in our revolutionary war, but should they have? How about our civil war? What's the difference?
This also brings up the question, in general, about "imposing" democracy on a people. I'm sure you've all heard it before, but there's this argument tossed around from time to time that contends that a people have to rise up and make their own democracy when they are ready for it -- that is cannot be forced on them. Is this the case? Always? What if a people are incapable of gaining democracy for themselves although they want it? How can we tell if this is the case? Is it bigoted of us to assume democracy is the best form of government for all people?
...many other thoughts come to mind. Either way: a good cartoon.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Trapped miners... safety violations??
You've probably heard the news on the trapped miners out in Utah. You can find the latest here.
Interestingly, the coverage on this always mentions the safety record of the mine (which has apparently had lots of violations in the past).
"Over the past three years, the mine was cited at least 300 times -- with 118 of those citations for violations serious enough to cause death, records show."
So... of course we don't want to jump to conclusions, but it leaves several interesting ethical questions looming, such as:
Is the owner of the mine responsible for the deaths of these miners (if they don't make it), due to not resolving the safety problems in the past?
Even if it can be shown to be an accident, does the past record of the mine still have a normative impact on the current crisis?
Interestingly, the coverage on this always mentions the safety record of the mine (which has apparently had lots of violations in the past).
"Over the past three years, the mine was cited at least 300 times -- with 118 of those citations for violations serious enough to cause death, records show."
So... of course we don't want to jump to conclusions, but it leaves several interesting ethical questions looming, such as:
Is the owner of the mine responsible for the deaths of these miners (if they don't make it), due to not resolving the safety problems in the past?
Even if it can be shown to be an accident, does the past record of the mine still have a normative impact on the current crisis?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Summer Hiatus over... a new semester has begun
Welcome back, RRfStV regulars! The summer is over (academically, anyway) and the school year has begun again up here at USAFA.
We'll resume regular blogging now.
Welcome, as well, to the new crop of ethics students who will be interacting on here.
Lot's of important stuff to catch up on in the world of ethics.
We'll resume regular blogging now.
Welcome, as well, to the new crop of ethics students who will be interacting on here.
Lot's of important stuff to catch up on in the world of ethics.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Military Report on troops' ethics
Some military troops are posed some tough ethical questions in a poll. Check out the story Here.
Do these numbers (if they are accurate) scare anyone? What kind of explanation can we come up with to understand why such a number of marines would (for example) not report a fellow marine for killing a non-combatant??
Do these numbers (if they are accurate) scare anyone? What kind of explanation can we come up with to understand why such a number of marines would (for example) not report a fellow marine for killing a non-combatant??
NPR does story on Ethics class at West Point
Check out this story on NPR's Morning Edition
Here.
It listens in on an Ethics class at West Point. One cadet makes the point that he is tired of "having all this ethics junk rammed down his throat" and he believes that taking classes, PME, etc. can't teach him to be a better person. He believes ethics is entirely subjective and "personal", so why waste my time with these kinds of classes?
This cadets complaints sound eerily familiar (although in the vast minority) to some cadets here as well. Any thoughts?
Here.
It listens in on an Ethics class at West Point. One cadet makes the point that he is tired of "having all this ethics junk rammed down his throat" and he believes that taking classes, PME, etc. can't teach him to be a better person. He believes ethics is entirely subjective and "personal", so why waste my time with these kinds of classes?
This cadets complaints sound eerily familiar (although in the vast minority) to some cadets here as well. Any thoughts?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Mission to mars -- should we cut off the sick guy's supplies?
Read this article here.
Some fascinating, and rather difficult, ethical questions that must be pondered for long-term space missions.
Your thoughts?
Some fascinating, and rather difficult, ethical questions that must be pondered for long-term space missions.
Your thoughts?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Military speaking out?
Remember all the hub-bub and much discussed situation with the retired Generals speaking out about the SecDef (Rumsfield)... well now we have an active duty LtCol speaking out about the war in Iraq -- specifically criticizing the Generals in charge and their decisions.
Read about it here. Apparently the story was also covered on national news this morning (on NPR and other sources).
What do you think? Is this acceptable behavoir? Is this not the same because it was in the context of an academic/professional article in a professional journal?
Read about it here. Apparently the story was also covered on national news this morning (on NPR and other sources).
What do you think? Is this acceptable behavoir? Is this not the same because it was in the context of an academic/professional article in a professional journal?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Deception and benefit.
A very simple question:
Is it wrong to decieve someone for their own benefit?
Yet a very difficult & complex ethical matter. We've been debating this one on and off all semester in the dept. Many supporting examples and counter examples come to mind for both sides. For example, placebos have proven to often have a measurable positive medical effect on patients (the placebo effect), yet, for it to work you have to deceive the patient (you can't TELL them you are giving them a placebo... they must believe it is a "real" drug for the placebo effect to work). Tradtionally in medical ethics it is considered wrong to prescribe placebos... but I'm not so sure. What if someone WANTS to have a placebo effect. Well, it's difficult at best. They can't request a placebo -- for then they know that's what they are getting and it won't work. My thought is this is a legitimate case where someone can be decieved for their own benefit and such an act would be morally permissable.
Your thoughts? Is it ever morally permisable to deceive someone for their benefit? There are LOTS of counters on the other side.
Is it wrong to decieve someone for their own benefit?
Yet a very difficult & complex ethical matter. We've been debating this one on and off all semester in the dept. Many supporting examples and counter examples come to mind for both sides. For example, placebos have proven to often have a measurable positive medical effect on patients (the placebo effect), yet, for it to work you have to deceive the patient (you can't TELL them you are giving them a placebo... they must believe it is a "real" drug for the placebo effect to work). Tradtionally in medical ethics it is considered wrong to prescribe placebos... but I'm not so sure. What if someone WANTS to have a placebo effect. Well, it's difficult at best. They can't request a placebo -- for then they know that's what they are getting and it won't work. My thought is this is a legitimate case where someone can be decieved for their own benefit and such an act would be morally permissable.
Your thoughts? Is it ever morally permisable to deceive someone for their benefit? There are LOTS of counters on the other side.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Earth day and overpopulation
Here's an interesting question... is there such a thing as "overpopulation"?
Earth Day is as good a time as any to reflect on some environmental ethics. Clearly there are many ethical implications of how we treat the environment and there's lots of debates to be had here.... but I'm particularly interested in the very concept of overpopulation. What does this mean, precisely? I assume something like, "a state of affairs where the human population of the earth exceeds the earth's sustainable resource to support said population." But then, of course, I'd have to ask: How can we possibly know when that number threshold has been reached?
The Lemon Law
As most of my students recall, we discussed a paper by one of my students about the "Lemon Law", only in this case as it applies to dating.
In brief, the idea is that if within the first few minutes of a date, if one party becomes convinced that there is no hope of a second date, then they have the right to end the date at that point, no questions asked.
As we've debated in class, there are all kinds of wide-ranging issues here. Give me your thoughts for or against the moral permisability of such a law.
In brief, the idea is that if within the first few minutes of a date, if one party becomes convinced that there is no hope of a second date, then they have the right to end the date at that point, no questions asked.
As we've debated in class, there are all kinds of wide-ranging issues here. Give me your thoughts for or against the moral permisability of such a law.
Kamikaze missions!
Phew, way too long with no new posts. My apologies.
There's been lots of stuff brewing to discuss and I'll try to mention just a few things.
First, check out this article on FoxNews regarding Brittish pilots and the possibility of suicide missions against terrorists.
This raises an interesting question, of course.
Are suicide "Kamikaze" missions ever morally permissable? It seems we can imagine some crazy scenario where it certainly seems like the high stakes consequences would demand such a thing.... but does it feel to anyone else that at such a point we've already lost? That we'd be playing "their" game, as it were? Moreover, isn't whatever argument one could come up with for us doing suicide missions essentially the same argument terrorists presently use for suicide bombings? (They believe the stakes are that high, only option, etc., etc.).
Does that bother you?
There's been lots of stuff brewing to discuss and I'll try to mention just a few things.
First, check out this article on FoxNews regarding Brittish pilots and the possibility of suicide missions against terrorists.
This raises an interesting question, of course.
Are suicide "Kamikaze" missions ever morally permissable? It seems we can imagine some crazy scenario where it certainly seems like the high stakes consequences would demand such a thing.... but does it feel to anyone else that at such a point we've already lost? That we'd be playing "their" game, as it were? Moreover, isn't whatever argument one could come up with for us doing suicide missions essentially the same argument terrorists presently use for suicide bombings? (They believe the stakes are that high, only option, etc., etc.).
Does that bother you?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Classic informal fallacies
Enjoy this look at "rational debate" here.
Sadly enough, this really is about the level I think a good portion of "debate" occurs on in our society today.
Sadly enough, this really is about the level I think a good portion of "debate" occurs on in our society today.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
A good read
Here's a fascinating article regarding an officer who sued the POTUS on behalf of a prisoner at Gitmo.
Check it out here.
Check it out here.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
sins committed?
Check out this story here.
(once you click on the link, you may need to push another button to launch the CNN video).
It regards a decal a soldier (and Iraq war vet) had on the back of his truck reading, "Forgive me Lord for the sins I committed to protect our freedom."
This relates to a great class discussion we had in a couple sections.
On one view of consequentialism, if doing some (in isolation) morally wrong act leads to a greater good, then that originally wrong act becomes good. On another view, the original wrong act is still wrong, but it "had to be done" as it were. Clearly the soldier has the later view... interesting.
What do you think?
(once you click on the link, you may need to push another button to launch the CNN video).
It regards a decal a soldier (and Iraq war vet) had on the back of his truck reading, "Forgive me Lord for the sins I committed to protect our freedom."
This relates to a great class discussion we had in a couple sections.
On one view of consequentialism, if doing some (in isolation) morally wrong act leads to a greater good, then that originally wrong act becomes good. On another view, the original wrong act is still wrong, but it "had to be done" as it were. Clearly the soldier has the later view... interesting.
What do you think?
The nature of an "offense"
Here's one our department was debating over lunch yesterday.
If you do something to someone that doesn't "hurt" them in any clear, direct way -- and they never know that it happened -- have you actually done anything wrong? This gets to the nature of what it means to committ an offense. To help explain, let me give a couple examples we came up with:
First imagine a "peeping tom" type scenario where someone (say a teenage male) looks in on someone else while they are in the shower (say an attractive female). Let's say the woman never knows that the peeping tom looked at her and no one else can ever find out.
Interestingly, simply from a simplistic utilitarian perspective, assuming the male derived some kind of pleasure from peeping, and the woman (if she never finds out) does not experience any (direct anyway) harm from it -- it seems we could actually call it a "good thing," and certainly not a bad one. So was it wrong of the tom? Did he commit any offense against the woman if she never finds out or is never aware of the tom?
Another example of what we after:
Let's say you have a vegetarian friend over for dinner and you make a nice soup for the first course. Now you could easily use chicken stock instead of vegetable stock in the recipe and your friend would probably never know. So let's say you do it. Your friend assumes its a vegetarian soup. He likes it a lot. And he leaves and no one ever knows, including your friend of course, that it was chicken stock instead of vegetable stock. If he never knows that he ate the chicken stock (and thus violated his own code -- let's say he's a vegetarian for ethical reasons), did you really commit any wrong?
This is tricky. Anyone can hop into this conversation and say "YES!" it was an offense and the person is a "victim" of a wrong act in both these cases. The tough part is explaining WHY. Any attempts?
If you do something to someone that doesn't "hurt" them in any clear, direct way -- and they never know that it happened -- have you actually done anything wrong? This gets to the nature of what it means to committ an offense. To help explain, let me give a couple examples we came up with:
First imagine a "peeping tom" type scenario where someone (say a teenage male) looks in on someone else while they are in the shower (say an attractive female). Let's say the woman never knows that the peeping tom looked at her and no one else can ever find out.
Interestingly, simply from a simplistic utilitarian perspective, assuming the male derived some kind of pleasure from peeping, and the woman (if she never finds out) does not experience any (direct anyway) harm from it -- it seems we could actually call it a "good thing," and certainly not a bad one. So was it wrong of the tom? Did he commit any offense against the woman if she never finds out or is never aware of the tom?
Another example of what we after:
Let's say you have a vegetarian friend over for dinner and you make a nice soup for the first course. Now you could easily use chicken stock instead of vegetable stock in the recipe and your friend would probably never know. So let's say you do it. Your friend assumes its a vegetarian soup. He likes it a lot. And he leaves and no one ever knows, including your friend of course, that it was chicken stock instead of vegetable stock. If he never knows that he ate the chicken stock (and thus violated his own code -- let's say he's a vegetarian for ethical reasons), did you really commit any wrong?
This is tricky. Anyone can hop into this conversation and say "YES!" it was an offense and the person is a "victim" of a wrong act in both these cases. The tough part is explaining WHY. Any attempts?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Classic paradox
Here's a spin on the classic "liar paradox," that I thought may be new for some of you.
Consider the following proposition X:
X = [This sentence is false]
What is the truth-value (true or false) of X?
Is it true? If that's the case... well you can see for yourself the trouble this leads to.
Any ideas on how to solve the paradox?
Consider the following proposition X:
X = [This sentence is false]
What is the truth-value (true or false) of X?
Is it true? If that's the case... well you can see for yourself the trouble this leads to.
Any ideas on how to solve the paradox?
Monday, March 5, 2007
An argument
Here's a classic argument I've been mulling over (yet again, for the roughly billionth time) of late and am curious to hear your thoughts on it.
1. Assume there is a God who is omnibenevolent (all-good), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipotent (all-powerful)
2. Assume there is evil in the world (we can see it everyday in the papers, as they say)
3. Given 1, we should not have 2.
4. Therefore, either 1 or 2 is false.
5. Since we know 2 to be true, 1 must be false.
6. Hence, there is no God (at least not the kind described in 1).
This argument, or versions of it, has been around for a very long time and is one of the most widely written on topics in all of philosophy. Odds are you've heard it before (at least in a form like this, "How can there be evil if there's a God?").
Almost all possible responses focus on premise 3 above -- that is, they try to offer an explanation for how 1 and 2 CAN co-exist and therefore once 3 is false, we have no problem.
Is there any other broad approach? What approach do you take to this problem? How can you defend the argument (if you are so inclined) against the possible responses?
1. Assume there is a God who is omnibenevolent (all-good), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipotent (all-powerful)
2. Assume there is evil in the world (we can see it everyday in the papers, as they say)
3. Given 1, we should not have 2.
4. Therefore, either 1 or 2 is false.
5. Since we know 2 to be true, 1 must be false.
6. Hence, there is no God (at least not the kind described in 1).
This argument, or versions of it, has been around for a very long time and is one of the most widely written on topics in all of philosophy. Odds are you've heard it before (at least in a form like this, "How can there be evil if there's a God?").
Almost all possible responses focus on premise 3 above -- that is, they try to offer an explanation for how 1 and 2 CAN co-exist and therefore once 3 is false, we have no problem.
Is there any other broad approach? What approach do you take to this problem? How can you defend the argument (if you are so inclined) against the possible responses?
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Academic Freedom and Unabashed War Celebrating
This fascinating post here combines two very intriguing ethical issues.
Please read it.
What do you think? Either issue is a good one to comment on, the academic freedom questions raised or the issues specifically raised against Glenn Reynolds.
Please read it.
What do you think? Either issue is a good one to comment on, the academic freedom questions raised or the issues specifically raised against Glenn Reynolds.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ishmael Beah's story
See a video about this young man Here.
I've heard countless stories like this before... a young child's entire family slaughtered before them and then those children forced to become rebels themselves. In this case he was forced into the government army fighting the rebels... but there seems little difference. This same "tactic" is occurring, and has been occurring for many years now, in the Sudan's Darfur region -- on a huge scale.
What do you make of it? A few questions to ponder: what are we to make of Ishmael's killing? In what ethical category do we put his killings? What are we to do when we realize that perhaps large portions, perhaps even a majority of those rebel groups causing such atrocities may very well be all like Ishmael? Listen to the description he writes about regarding how he lined up six people and watched them suffer (for a day) before mecahnically killing them. This, to me, sounds only like something out of the Holocaust. It reminds me chillingly of stories of SS soldiers doing similar things to the Jews in the streets of Eastern Europe.
How do these stories affect, if it all, affect how we can perhaps come up with any answers on how to stop the seemingly perpetual violence in Africa? In a post-holocaust world, how do things like this, situation like this, spiral out of control and happen?
Rwanda, Sierra Leon, Darfur.... and there are many other places, and perhaps more to come.
Any thoughts?
I've heard countless stories like this before... a young child's entire family slaughtered before them and then those children forced to become rebels themselves. In this case he was forced into the government army fighting the rebels... but there seems little difference. This same "tactic" is occurring, and has been occurring for many years now, in the Sudan's Darfur region -- on a huge scale.
What do you make of it? A few questions to ponder: what are we to make of Ishmael's killing? In what ethical category do we put his killings? What are we to do when we realize that perhaps large portions, perhaps even a majority of those rebel groups causing such atrocities may very well be all like Ishmael? Listen to the description he writes about regarding how he lined up six people and watched them suffer (for a day) before mecahnically killing them. This, to me, sounds only like something out of the Holocaust. It reminds me chillingly of stories of SS soldiers doing similar things to the Jews in the streets of Eastern Europe.
How do these stories affect, if it all, affect how we can perhaps come up with any answers on how to stop the seemingly perpetual violence in Africa? In a post-holocaust world, how do things like this, situation like this, spiral out of control and happen?
Rwanda, Sierra Leon, Darfur.... and there are many other places, and perhaps more to come.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Imposition of will?
Check out this cartoon:
It is of course referencing the recent comments made by Russian President Putin regarding how he believes the US forces it's will on the rest of the world (often through military means).
What do you think? Does Putin here have a point? Are we -- as a combination of being the sole remaining super-power and our leaders administering a rather undeniably interventionist foreign policy of late -- trying to play control with the rest of the world? Are we the world's self-appointed policeman? Or worse... ?
Your thoughts?
It is of course referencing the recent comments made by Russian President Putin regarding how he believes the US forces it's will on the rest of the world (often through military means).
What do you think? Does Putin here have a point? Are we -- as a combination of being the sole remaining super-power and our leaders administering a rather undeniably interventionist foreign policy of late -- trying to play control with the rest of the world? Are we the world's self-appointed policeman? Or worse... ?
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Half-truths...?
As usual for any political speech in our day and age, the "facts" were a bit cloudy in the things claimed by the POTUS in his State of the Union speech. The same holds true for one of the counter-claims made by Sen. Webb. See Here. Our friends at FactCheck.org have dug deep into the claims and unearthed some, shall we say, "flexibility" with the facts.
What do you make of this? Sure, there's the cynical claim that this is just a symptom of modern politics constantly playing the "spin" game (and that's most certainly true). But, what else can we ask here? Does telling a "half-truth" constitute a lie? If not, why not? What would we define as the basis for lying? And how does shaping and bending facts to be the most favorable for your position differ from that definition?
What do you make of this? Sure, there's the cynical claim that this is just a symptom of modern politics constantly playing the "spin" game (and that's most certainly true). But, what else can we ask here? Does telling a "half-truth" constitute a lie? If not, why not? What would we define as the basis for lying? And how does shaping and bending facts to be the most favorable for your position differ from that definition?
Gays in the military?
One of our most important former Generals has had a change of heart on the matter.
Read the story Here.
Do you agree with his arguments?
Read the story Here.
Do you agree with his arguments?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Iraq, Constitutional Powers, and the distinction between criminal law enforcement and war
Long post title, short post.
Check out this post over on the "Leiter Reports" blog. Several issues here. I'm most interested in the discussion regarding the actual powers of the legislative over the executive regarding war (and that how the legal systems were intentionally set up that way!). Also curious about the on-going debate regarding the very idea of a war on a method (i.e. terror) as well as the related issues of crime fighting vs. war fighting. All very interesting stuff.
I've linked posts from this blog before. Read my warnings from that previous post. I don't endorse anything said over at the Leiter Reports -- but the blog certainly gives good fodder for discussion.
Your thoughts?
Check out this post over on the "Leiter Reports" blog. Several issues here. I'm most interested in the discussion regarding the actual powers of the legislative over the executive regarding war (and that how the legal systems were intentionally set up that way!). Also curious about the on-going debate regarding the very idea of a war on a method (i.e. terror) as well as the related issues of crime fighting vs. war fighting. All very interesting stuff.
I've linked posts from this blog before. Read my warnings from that previous post. I don't endorse anything said over at the Leiter Reports -- but the blog certainly gives good fodder for discussion.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
child sex slaves
Check out this story here.
Here.
What do you think?
For those of you who tend to think that we can't say that morality is objective -- I'm curious if you'll defend the actions described in this story as merely subjectively right or wrong.
Would you say that to call the situation described in the story below "wrong" is just describing how we feel about it – but certainly such a claim (that it is wrong) is not saying anything that can be considered "true" or "false"? Or is there a true position to hold in regards to this situation and a false one (that is, a position that says it is wrong is correct, and vice versa)?
It is tough to play the relativist game when faced with stories of such disgust... but I'm curious if anyone is willing to try. It is easy to play the game on an issue such as, say, abortion. Many of you would hate to claim that one person is "right" and one person is "wrong" in such a case, and so you'll default to your moral subjectivism. But in a case such as this... let's say there are two people: Jim and Bob. Jim thinks that child sex slavery is morally justifiable. Bob thinks it is morally wrong. Are you willing to say that Bob is right? Or are you going to stick to your guns and claim that they are "both right"?
Just curious...
Here.
What do you think?
For those of you who tend to think that we can't say that morality is objective -- I'm curious if you'll defend the actions described in this story as merely subjectively right or wrong.
Would you say that to call the situation described in the story below "wrong" is just describing how we feel about it – but certainly such a claim (that it is wrong) is not saying anything that can be considered "true" or "false"? Or is there a true position to hold in regards to this situation and a false one (that is, a position that says it is wrong is correct, and vice versa)?
It is tough to play the relativist game when faced with stories of such disgust... but I'm curious if anyone is willing to try. It is easy to play the game on an issue such as, say, abortion. Many of you would hate to claim that one person is "right" and one person is "wrong" in such a case, and so you'll default to your moral subjectivism. But in a case such as this... let's say there are two people: Jim and Bob. Jim thinks that child sex slavery is morally justifiable. Bob thinks it is morally wrong. Are you willing to say that Bob is right? Or are you going to stick to your guns and claim that they are "both right"?
Just curious...
Friday, January 19, 2007
A stranger or your dog... Take 2
Here's a few fun ethics exercises. I did a post on roughly these same questions a few months back. Now that we've got a new crop of students, I thought I'd throw it out there again (notice that I changed a couple of the questions to mix it up a bit).
Also, for my old bloggers, I'm curious if your answers to any of these questions has changed. If so, why do you think that is?
So here it is...
In the following scenario imagine you are in some weird situation wherein you can only save one of the the two options given in each question. There is no possible way to save both, nor would sacrificing yourself help in any way towards saving them and they will both die. If you do nothing, they will both die (and, I suppose, that is an option). You know that when you save one of them, the other will most certainly die (or be destroyed). Assume there is no other relevant information than that given for each question (i.e., in the child or adult question, assume they have the same status otherwise in all ways that may affect your decision, the only difference being that one is a child and one is an adult). You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother/sister
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a jellyfish
k) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
l) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time (in your favorite genre)
m) A young child you don't know or a 95-year old adult that you know well
n) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
o) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not technically brain dead).
p) Lassie or Hitler
q) 1 of your fellow soldiers from your unit or 25 injured enemy soldiers who have surrendered
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different): 1) what do you think you would actually do and 2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through o) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
Also, for my old bloggers, I'm curious if your answers to any of these questions has changed. If so, why do you think that is?
So here it is...
In the following scenario imagine you are in some weird situation wherein you can only save one of the the two options given in each question. There is no possible way to save both, nor would sacrificing yourself help in any way towards saving them and they will both die. If you do nothing, they will both die (and, I suppose, that is an option). You know that when you save one of them, the other will most certainly die (or be destroyed). Assume there is no other relevant information than that given for each question (i.e., in the child or adult question, assume they have the same status otherwise in all ways that may affect your decision, the only difference being that one is a child and one is an adult). You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother/sister
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a jellyfish
k) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
l) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time (in your favorite genre)
m) A young child you don't know or a 95-year old adult that you know well
n) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
o) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not technically brain dead).
p) Lassie or Hitler
q) 1 of your fellow soldiers from your unit or 25 injured enemy soldiers who have surrendered
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different): 1) what do you think you would actually do and 2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through o) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
...."Professionalism" in question?
Here's a curious story that we've been debating in the department -- so I thought I'd see what the blog world thinks.
Read the story, but the brief is this: A female SSgt who is a TI for BMT posed naked for a nationally published magazine (Playboy). The debate takes two sides (at least so far in our dept here):
One sides agrees that what she did was stupid (a bad judgment call), but in no way "wrong" (ethically, anyway) or something deserving of being reprimanded. This side argues that there was no specific violation of the UCMJ that occured and so there is nothing to do here(although the JAG's could try to envoke the "Good Order & Discipline" catch-all against her if they really wanted... and it looks like they may).
The other position agrees that it was of course unwise (a bad call), but also that it was in some sense wrong. Forget for a moment arguments for or against the inherent ethical standing of pornography -- that's a different debate (for obviously, if one finds posing for pornography under any circumstance to being morally wrong, this there is no debate here). The question here is does her being an NCO who is routinely in charge of brand new airmen in basic training somehow make this act particularly different than if she were a civilian? This position argues that it does and significantly so.
A good way to approach your answer to the question is what would you do (specifically) if you were her commander? Possible answers I've heard range from nothing, to an LOC, to an LOR, all the way to court-marshall. Tell me what you'd do and then justify it.
What do you think?
Read the story, but the brief is this: A female SSgt who is a TI for BMT posed naked for a nationally published magazine (Playboy). The debate takes two sides (at least so far in our dept here):
One sides agrees that what she did was stupid (a bad judgment call), but in no way "wrong" (ethically, anyway) or something deserving of being reprimanded. This side argues that there was no specific violation of the UCMJ that occured and so there is nothing to do here(although the JAG's could try to envoke the "Good Order & Discipline" catch-all against her if they really wanted... and it looks like they may).
The other position agrees that it was of course unwise (a bad call), but also that it was in some sense wrong. Forget for a moment arguments for or against the inherent ethical standing of pornography -- that's a different debate (for obviously, if one finds posing for pornography under any circumstance to being morally wrong, this there is no debate here). The question here is does her being an NCO who is routinely in charge of brand new airmen in basic training somehow make this act particularly different than if she were a civilian? This position argues that it does and significantly so.
A good way to approach your answer to the question is what would you do (specifically) if you were her commander? Possible answers I've heard range from nothing, to an LOC, to an LOR, all the way to court-marshall. Tell me what you'd do and then justify it.
What do you think?
Monday, January 8, 2007
Welcome Spring 2007 Ethics Students
Captain Strawser's newest students, welcome to the class blog. This blog already has one semester of interesting and fascinating discussions and debates behind it. Feel free to peruse the archives. I'm sure we'll return to some of the posts discussed previously -- for many of these issues are timeless -- and we'll wrestle through many new issues.
To my old students and other outside-USAFA bloggers, I encourage you to continue to interact and debate on this blog. I hope it continues to grow with each new semester. (Although, sorry, I can't give my old students any instructor points for posting anymore!)
Here's looking forward to a new season of rational reflections.
To my old students and other outside-USAFA bloggers, I encourage you to continue to interact and debate on this blog. I hope it continues to grow with each new semester. (Although, sorry, I can't give my old students any instructor points for posting anymore!)
Here's looking forward to a new season of rational reflections.
Friday, December 15, 2006
F-15 ride request email...
I'm sure all of you (cadets, anyway) have seen the email floating around where the Maj from a fighter squadron slams a cadet for requesting an incentive ride.
Any thoughts on this? Was the Maj. in the right for responding as he did? Was the cadet in the wrong? Were both in the wrong? We both right?
What do you think?
Here's another way to approach the question: if you were the Maj what would you have said/done differently (if anything). Same question for the cadet. And if you were General Regni (say), what you do now (if anything)?
Any thoughts on this? Was the Maj. in the right for responding as he did? Was the cadet in the wrong? Were both in the wrong? We both right?
What do you think?
Here's another way to approach the question: if you were the Maj what would you have said/done differently (if anything). Same question for the cadet. And if you were General Regni (say), what you do now (if anything)?
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Swearing in on the.... Quran?
Here's a controversial one... Dennis Prager, a syndicated radio show host, recently had this commentary. Read it here:
Here.
It has set off quite a firestorm of debate and frustration for lots of folks. What do you think? He does have some arguments here -- so you can try to analyze those and see if they work. But what about is overall claim? What IS his overall claim exactly?
He responded to all this heat generated by his commentary here
here
But you'll notice that his response is much more toned down.
I'd give you a source to find responses to Prager, but there are literally too many out there. This is being ranted about all of the blogosphere right now -- just do any search on it and you'll find plenty of foder. Be warned though: some blogs are places where people just yell and rant and rave -- and others are where people actually rationally debate these issues.
Give me your opinion!
Here.
It has set off quite a firestorm of debate and frustration for lots of folks. What do you think? He does have some arguments here -- so you can try to analyze those and see if they work. But what about is overall claim? What IS his overall claim exactly?
He responded to all this heat generated by his commentary here
here
But you'll notice that his response is much more toned down.
I'd give you a source to find responses to Prager, but there are literally too many out there. This is being ranted about all of the blogosphere right now -- just do any search on it and you'll find plenty of foder. Be warned though: some blogs are places where people just yell and rant and rave -- and others are where people actually rationally debate these issues.
Give me your opinion!
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
An oft forgotten side-effect of the mess in Iraq
Here's a note from William Edmundson, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, on the Leiter Reports blog. Read it here.
He points out something we often do not hear about: the refugee problem that has been placed upon many of Iraq's neighbors due to the conflict.
What do you make of this? What is the US's moral responsibility (if any) regarding this refugee problem? If you were a representative of one of the sovereign powers that border Iraq that are dealing with this problem (i.e. Syria or Jordan), how would you feel about this situation? Presume, for argument's sake, that you (as Syria or Jordan) did not see the pressing need to remove Sadaam because your nation had no real self-interest in his removal (this isn't entirely accurate, but grant it for the moment). Under Sadaam you had no Iraqi refugee problem. Now, due to the changes in Iraq over the past three years, your nation is stuck with this problem -- that you had no hand in causing... what kind of moral claims do you think you would make regarding your nation's situation and perhaps other nation-state powers?
BTW, The Leiter Reports (originally just the Leiter Report until he added other contributors) is a somewhat popular philosophy news blog. Leiter is a philosophy at Texas who head's up the Philosophical Gourmet (a ranking system of Philosophy graduate programs). His blog now frequently posts political commentary and discourse -- very often highly critical of the Bush adminstration and current US foreign policy.
He points out something we often do not hear about: the refugee problem that has been placed upon many of Iraq's neighbors due to the conflict.
What do you make of this? What is the US's moral responsibility (if any) regarding this refugee problem? If you were a representative of one of the sovereign powers that border Iraq that are dealing with this problem (i.e. Syria or Jordan), how would you feel about this situation? Presume, for argument's sake, that you (as Syria or Jordan) did not see the pressing need to remove Sadaam because your nation had no real self-interest in his removal (this isn't entirely accurate, but grant it for the moment). Under Sadaam you had no Iraqi refugee problem. Now, due to the changes in Iraq over the past three years, your nation is stuck with this problem -- that you had no hand in causing... what kind of moral claims do you think you would make regarding your nation's situation and perhaps other nation-state powers?
BTW, The Leiter Reports (originally just the Leiter Report until he added other contributors) is a somewhat popular philosophy news blog. Leiter is a philosophy at Texas who head's up the Philosophical Gourmet (a ranking system of Philosophy graduate programs). His blog now frequently posts political commentary and discourse -- very often highly critical of the Bush adminstration and current US foreign policy.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
A business world vs. academic world ethical quandry
Here's a rather tricky, complicated scenario for your consideration. I got this from some random discussion board, here.
"
An undergradute student named Alice is doing her university industrial training program in a company named Wee-Kan, which has a policy of not allowing employees to disclose any company confidential information to outsiders.
Wee-Kan is facing financial difficulties. Meanwhile, another company, Global Corp, is interested in acquiring Wee-Kan. The Wee-Kan CEO explained to staff that the merger will help to increase the market share and stabilize company growth. As it's commercial-in-confidence, all personnel working at Wee-Kan are not allowed to disclose any information to outsiders.
As a result of potential change of management, staffs are no longer interested in their work, so Alice's training is badly affected. She's asked by her academic supervisor to write a quarterly report on Wee-Kan's growth and development strategy.
Given the fact that she hasn't received enough on the job training and is not allowed to discuss any confidential information, she decides to prepare a report detailing recent events using the company's computer . Unfortunately, her work is scanned and updated in the IT log file by the IT admin. The admin immediately notifies Alice's supervisor, Brooke, of her progress report. Brooke reads the report and comments that she hasn't taken enough responsibility to understand the ethical and legal issues with the organization's current situation.
Brooke doesn't approve of what she has submitted in the report and asks her to remove some of the company data in the report. She is left with no choice but to submit her shortened progress report to her academic supervisor. She doesn't pass as due to the lack of progress in her work.
My questions are:
1. If Alice could have done something before her report is submitted to her academic supervisor, what do you think she should do?
(given the fact that she shouldn't breach the company's policy but at the same time, she certainly doesn't want to fail)
2. Is Brooke's action legal and/or ethical?
3. Is the IT admin's action of exposing someone's work (Alice's report) legal in this case?
"
"
An undergradute student named Alice is doing her university industrial training program in a company named Wee-Kan, which has a policy of not allowing employees to disclose any company confidential information to outsiders.
Wee-Kan is facing financial difficulties. Meanwhile, another company, Global Corp, is interested in acquiring Wee-Kan. The Wee-Kan CEO explained to staff that the merger will help to increase the market share and stabilize company growth. As it's commercial-in-confidence, all personnel working at Wee-Kan are not allowed to disclose any information to outsiders.
As a result of potential change of management, staffs are no longer interested in their work, so Alice's training is badly affected. She's asked by her academic supervisor to write a quarterly report on Wee-Kan's growth and development strategy.
Given the fact that she hasn't received enough on the job training and is not allowed to discuss any confidential information, she decides to prepare a report detailing recent events using the company's computer . Unfortunately, her work is scanned and updated in the IT log file by the IT admin. The admin immediately notifies Alice's supervisor, Brooke, of her progress report. Brooke reads the report and comments that she hasn't taken enough responsibility to understand the ethical and legal issues with the organization's current situation.
Brooke doesn't approve of what she has submitted in the report and asks her to remove some of the company data in the report. She is left with no choice but to submit her shortened progress report to her academic supervisor. She doesn't pass as due to the lack of progress in her work.
My questions are:
1. If Alice could have done something before her report is submitted to her academic supervisor, what do you think she should do?
(given the fact that she shouldn't breach the company's policy but at the same time, she certainly doesn't want to fail)
2. Is Brooke's action legal and/or ethical?
3. Is the IT admin's action of exposing someone's work (Alice's report) legal in this case?
"
Thought Experiments
The BBC did a nice little story on Ethical Dillemma's
here.
There's a couple fun classic ones that most of you have already heard, of course. But still fun.
here.
There's a couple fun classic ones that most of you have already heard, of course. But still fun.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Cheating and moral guilt regarding CYA
Check out this site that makes customs papers for students for a fee.
Then, most critically, read the "Terms of Service" aggreement at the bottom of the page. Here's a small sample:
"You agree that the paper produced by samedayresearch represents
an original work that is intended for further research and can only be used as
a model for your own writing efforts. You are encouraged to use our custom papers
with proper citation. We do not endorse nor tolerate any form of whole or partial
plagiarism and will not engage in any activity that will facilitate cheating. "
So, the questions here are multiple. First, and I suppose what I'm most interested in is this curious philosophical question:
When someone does something clearly immoral, yet covers their own culpability (at least legally, as this website does in the agreement), does that in any way affect their culpability (or better, their blameworthiness or guilt in our eyes)? I'm tempted, of course, to say yes -- that it, in fact, adds to their moral guilt (by adding lying to their already unethical behavoir). Yet, curiously, in cases such as this the claim made in the agreement could theoretically be POSSIBLE and so, assuming that the guilty party would never admit to what we all think (know) they are actually doing, does this mere entrance of a possiblity of innocence in any way lessen the total blameworthiness (recognizing certain epistemic limitations that we will have in nearly ALL moral blameworthiness cases -- i.e. we never know with complete certainty people's intentions, etc., in any case whatsoever). We seem to do this in some other moral cases, do we not? If someone seems to pretty clearly be guilty of some immoral act to us, but then we find out that there is some (however unlikely) possible chance of them being innocent -- it seems to (or can, in some cases anyway) lessen our overall assesment of their blameworthiness. Yet, if the person IS lying in their cover (and we think most likely they are) then it seems that it should increase our assesment of their guilt. But, again, granting that we ultimately cannot know, we often seem to be slightly (if however slightly) more lenient on the guilty party simply in lieu of the possibility that they may be innocent (or at least less guilty). If all this is correct then it gives us this curious paradox: By doing something that in fact actually adds to your moral guilt (in reality) you can occasionally lessen your moral guilt (in appearance). ... but then again, maybe there's no paradox here at all. One could say, I suppose, that's just what lying is.
From a legal perspective there are many other interesting questions here. In something as obvious as this (this site is CLEARLY intended for students to buy papers to use as their own), how can the site merely claiming that that is not what they are doing somehow free them of culpability?
Curious stuff to think about.
Any thoughts?
Then, most critically, read the "Terms of Service" aggreement at the bottom of the page. Here's a small sample:
"You agree that the paper produced by samedayresearch represents
an original work that is intended for further research and can only be used as
a model for your own writing efforts. You are encouraged to use our custom papers
with proper citation. We do not endorse nor tolerate any form of whole or partial
plagiarism and will not engage in any activity that will facilitate cheating. "
So, the questions here are multiple. First, and I suppose what I'm most interested in is this curious philosophical question:
When someone does something clearly immoral, yet covers their own culpability (at least legally, as this website does in the agreement), does that in any way affect their culpability (or better, their blameworthiness or guilt in our eyes)? I'm tempted, of course, to say yes -- that it, in fact, adds to their moral guilt (by adding lying to their already unethical behavoir). Yet, curiously, in cases such as this the claim made in the agreement could theoretically be POSSIBLE and so, assuming that the guilty party would never admit to what we all think (know) they are actually doing, does this mere entrance of a possiblity of innocence in any way lessen the total blameworthiness (recognizing certain epistemic limitations that we will have in nearly ALL moral blameworthiness cases -- i.e. we never know with complete certainty people's intentions, etc., in any case whatsoever). We seem to do this in some other moral cases, do we not? If someone seems to pretty clearly be guilty of some immoral act to us, but then we find out that there is some (however unlikely) possible chance of them being innocent -- it seems to (or can, in some cases anyway) lessen our overall assesment of their blameworthiness. Yet, if the person IS lying in their cover (and we think most likely they are) then it seems that it should increase our assesment of their guilt. But, again, granting that we ultimately cannot know, we often seem to be slightly (if however slightly) more lenient on the guilty party simply in lieu of the possibility that they may be innocent (or at least less guilty). If all this is correct then it gives us this curious paradox: By doing something that in fact actually adds to your moral guilt (in reality) you can occasionally lessen your moral guilt (in appearance). ... but then again, maybe there's no paradox here at all. One could say, I suppose, that's just what lying is.
From a legal perspective there are many other interesting questions here. In something as obvious as this (this site is CLEARLY intended for students to buy papers to use as their own), how can the site merely claiming that that is not what they are doing somehow free them of culpability?
Curious stuff to think about.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Chinese news
In a related story...
Check out this news post on the OJ Simpson book story here.
It reads just like a standard news story until the last two paragraphs. As you may know, the Chinese media and press have heavy government influence (control?). News articles like this, a fairly standard presentation of the facts followed by a moral commentary, are not uncommon. Do you see anything wrong with this? Could this (moral commentary in news) be a good thing?
Check out this news post on the OJ Simpson book story here.
It reads just like a standard news story until the last two paragraphs. As you may know, the Chinese media and press have heavy government influence (control?). News articles like this, a fairly standard presentation of the facts followed by a moral commentary, are not uncommon. Do you see anything wrong with this? Could this (moral commentary in news) be a good thing?
If I did it...
I'm sure most of you remember the infamous OJ Simpson trial. This most recent news, OJ signing up for a book entitled "If I did it" wherein he describes how he WOULD have killed his wife and friend if he HAD done the murders, is particularly surprising. Clearly this is born out of a desire to make some money -- OJ's lawyers bills have been expensive over the years. But what else does it tell us? Is this just OJ mocking us? The principle of Double Jeopardy seems to be a good one in our nation's judicial system... but situations like this sure test our patience. Any thoughts on the whole concept of someone speaking in detail about crimes they "didn't" commit? Is double jeopardy a good institution in our legal system? Should there be any exceptions?
You can see a brief news story on the OJ book
Here.
You can see a brief news story on the OJ book
Here.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
A medical ethics/military ethics dillema
Here's an interesting dillema for you to consider:
Imaine it is WWII North Africa campaign. You are a medic at a med station back behind enemy lines. Your medical center is in very short supply of penicillin. Your job is to treat those troops you can help and get them back to the front lines as soon as possible. You often have to do the hard work of triage.
On one particular night your penicilin supplies are running very short. Currently you have a handful of troops in your clinic and you won't have enough penicillin for all of them that need it. Some of the troops are in the clinic because they have some kind of venereal disease that they got from being promiscuous with some local women. Some others of the troops are in your clinic because they got seriously wounded fighting on the front lines. Each group needs the penicilin. If you give the penicillin to the wounded troops it will help them get better, but it is going to take a long time and even then they won't be able to return to combat (because they've lost a limb or something, etc.). The VD soldiers, on the other hand, could very quickly be cured of their VD via the penicillin and can quickly return to the front lines of combat after you give it to them.
So... who do you give the penicillin to?
Imaine it is WWII North Africa campaign. You are a medic at a med station back behind enemy lines. Your medical center is in very short supply of penicillin. Your job is to treat those troops you can help and get them back to the front lines as soon as possible. You often have to do the hard work of triage.
On one particular night your penicilin supplies are running very short. Currently you have a handful of troops in your clinic and you won't have enough penicillin for all of them that need it. Some of the troops are in the clinic because they have some kind of venereal disease that they got from being promiscuous with some local women. Some others of the troops are in your clinic because they got seriously wounded fighting on the front lines. Each group needs the penicilin. If you give the penicillin to the wounded troops it will help them get better, but it is going to take a long time and even then they won't be able to return to combat (because they've lost a limb or something, etc.). The VD soldiers, on the other hand, could very quickly be cured of their VD via the penicillin and can quickly return to the front lines of combat after you give it to them.
So... who do you give the penicillin to?
Monday, October 30, 2006
In honor of Halloween...
So this political cartoon is claiming... ?
Apparently that several of the accepted tenants of JWT died at the desk of Cheney.
Do you see any problems with this claim (logical fallacies, informal fallacies, or factual issues?)?
Or is it plausible?
Friday, October 27, 2006
"Female Circumcision"
Check out this story here:
Here.
This is a topic you've probably heard of before and has been hotly debated for some time:
Female Genital Mutilation. An ancient practice for many tribes in Africa done for a combination of religious, cultural/ethnic, and social custom reasons.
Interestingly, as this news story tells, a man in the US is being brought up on charges for the practice.
Here's my question:
If this practice s illegal and a man is arrested and put on trial for it here in the US... Why isn't male circumcision also illegal?
It seems to be completely parallel:
It is done for religious, cultural/ethnic, and/or social custom reasons. It is a very similiar practice: a remove of part of the genitals on a child (that is, before the child has the ability to voice their reasoned consent to the practice).
What do you think? Currently in this country male circumcision is of course legal, but female circumcision is illegal.
Anybody have any problems with that?
Here.
This is a topic you've probably heard of before and has been hotly debated for some time:
Female Genital Mutilation. An ancient practice for many tribes in Africa done for a combination of religious, cultural/ethnic, and social custom reasons.
Interestingly, as this news story tells, a man in the US is being brought up on charges for the practice.
Here's my question:
If this practice s illegal and a man is arrested and put on trial for it here in the US... Why isn't male circumcision also illegal?
It seems to be completely parallel:
It is done for religious, cultural/ethnic, and/or social custom reasons. It is a very similiar practice: a remove of part of the genitals on a child (that is, before the child has the ability to voice their reasoned consent to the practice).
What do you think? Currently in this country male circumcision is of course legal, but female circumcision is illegal.
Anybody have any problems with that?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A little business ethics?
It's funny where ethical discussions crop up. This excerpt below is actually from the Tuesday-morning Quarterback article at ESPN.com. Regardless of who raises this question, for quite some time I've wrestled over the utterly massive salaries and compensation packages given to big business CEO's in this country. This is just the latest in countless similiar stories that boggle the mind. The question raised by this author is a good one: is this really any different than stealing in any significant way?
"New Record for CEO Gluttony: Last week William McGuire, CEO of insurer UnitedHealth and a centerpiece of the latest corporate-boardroom scandal (backdated stock options) agreed to leave the company. The Wall Street Journal estimated that for his 14 years running UnitedHealth, McGuire pocketed a total of about $1.6 billion. That's $457,000 per day, or $57,000 per working hour. So McGuire paid himself more per hour than the median American annual household income. And this was during a period when UnitedHealth was cutting benefits to those it insures, cutting benefits received by its own workers, and cutting payments to physicians and hospitals for health care. Obviously this greedy little man is beyond disgrace: To experience disgrace, one must have a conscience. But why isn't McGuire's $1.6 billion simply considered theft from shareholders? UnitedHealth is a public company, and there is no possibility the fantastic amount was justified by market forces -- that is, that the UnitedHealth board could not have found a similarly qualified CEO for less than $1.6 billion."
"New Record for CEO Gluttony: Last week William McGuire, CEO of insurer UnitedHealth and a centerpiece of the latest corporate-boardroom scandal (backdated stock options) agreed to leave the company. The Wall Street Journal estimated that for his 14 years running UnitedHealth, McGuire pocketed a total of about $1.6 billion. That's $457,000 per day, or $57,000 per working hour. So McGuire paid himself more per hour than the median American annual household income. And this was during a period when UnitedHealth was cutting benefits to those it insures, cutting benefits received by its own workers, and cutting payments to physicians and hospitals for health care. Obviously this greedy little man is beyond disgrace: To experience disgrace, one must have a conscience. But why isn't McGuire's $1.6 billion simply considered theft from shareholders? UnitedHealth is a public company, and there is no possibility the fantastic amount was justified by market forces -- that is, that the UnitedHealth board could not have found a similarly qualified CEO for less than $1.6 billion."
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Digitally created....?
Here's a tough one for you to consider.
First, answer this question to yourself: why is child pornography wrong (assuming that you do think it is wrong)?
Now, I'm guessing that the first answer you came up with is something like: "It is wrong because it exploits/damages/victimizes children."
OK, now imagine this: is digitally-computer created child pornography wrong? That is, imagine that some computer programer could develop digitally created pornography that is not based off of any child but is completely made up -- it is not using any specific child as a model for the pornography, etc. So... now, it would be claimed, we've removed the reason you had for why child pornography is wrong -- namely, digitally created child pornography does not damage a child.
So... (two questions):
First, do you think digitally created child pornography (which is not based on any particular child) is wrong?
If so, WHY is it wrong? It would seem that your initial reasons for thinking child pornography is wrong no longer apply here. What reasons could you come up with for claiming that digitally created child pornography is wrong??
First, answer this question to yourself: why is child pornography wrong (assuming that you do think it is wrong)?
Now, I'm guessing that the first answer you came up with is something like: "It is wrong because it exploits/damages/victimizes children."
OK, now imagine this: is digitally-computer created child pornography wrong? That is, imagine that some computer programer could develop digitally created pornography that is not based off of any child but is completely made up -- it is not using any specific child as a model for the pornography, etc. So... now, it would be claimed, we've removed the reason you had for why child pornography is wrong -- namely, digitally created child pornography does not damage a child.
So... (two questions):
First, do you think digitally created child pornography (which is not based on any particular child) is wrong?
If so, WHY is it wrong? It would seem that your initial reasons for thinking child pornography is wrong no longer apply here. What reasons could you come up with for claiming that digitally created child pornography is wrong??
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
Since I'm posting political cartoons, I'll just add this one.... mainly because it is essentially how I feel about the finger pointing over whose failure has been less bad. Perhaps this is the price we pay for living in a democracy: endless bickering, politicizing, and posturing for the next election cycle. No? Help out my cynacism a bit... please.
Iraq: The Frontline for Terror? (creating or fighting?)
Lot's of issues here, of course (such as leaking intel reports, political timing, etc., etc.). The one I'd like to focus on, for the time being, is this basic argument:
If the recently leaked intelligence reports are correct (and other corraborating evidence: other reports, military experience, experts opinions, etc., etc.) and the war in Iraq IS in fact CAUSING more terrorism than it is preventing, then what justification can we use for our on-going efforts therein?
The POTUS calls Iraq the frontline for fighting terrorism. But if it is actually creating more terrorists than it is stopping -- then what kind of justification is the adminstration left with?
Seriously -- I'm asking the question (not rhetorically here): what other major justifications can be used if even THIS last bastion of defense of the war is now lost?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A guest post
One of the Philosophy 310 students asks the following question to you cadets. Lauren asks:
"After our a close examination of just war theory with the legalist paradigm, jus ad bellum, jus in bello, Westphalia, The Moral Warrior, the focus on why you serve the state, is killing ever justified, etc. etc., it seems that a considerable amount of moral reasoning plays into the military on both a legal and personal level. As a class we go through scenarios on how to defend our position and explain the greater good we’re trying to accomplish as military leaders to, say, a hippie. It all seems pretty rational and reasonable to me. But why is it, then, that a considerable amount of the cadet and pilot population seems to have no grasp of the morality of the issues at hand. You’ve seen it, maybe you even get wrapped up in it and join the fun. One of the more popular (outside of Captain Strawser’s 310) responses to “why do you want to be a pilot” is “so I can blow shit up” and I’ve heard on more than one occasion from peers things like “I can’t wait until I graduate and can go kill people”. I’m not exaggerating, this is a real quote. Most of the time these people can’t even attempt to justify what they’re saying but sometimes I get the ‘but they’re not people they’re terrorists’ responses. I’ve talked to fighter pilots on ops and here for career day and many of them brag about killing people on the ground and in the air and dropping bombs on large targets. In a Law class last year a retired fighter pilot guest speaker complained about LOAC to the class saying that the proportionality laws merely got in their way. The best example I can think of if you don’t believe me is the video clips. They show them in a-hall. It’s a fighter and bomber clip with the most hardcore, heavy metal background music demonstrating air power with endless buildings blowing up left and right or pilots taking out people running around on the ground. And what do we do? We get excited, pumped up and start clapping or even cheering. In basic training on the fourth of July they showed a clip of bombs going off in the desert with that ‘brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue’ country music hit. People cheered. It seems like fighter pilots and cadets never even think about someone being inside that other airplane or that building or that truck. At the Academy we are in large distanced from the weight of killing. Most cadets don’t take killing people seriously because they’re ‘terrorists’ or civilians in the close proximity of terrorists. Initially, I was disgusted with the military for being so eager to kill people and not even weighing the seriousness of dropping bombs on cities. It is too easy to think of blowing up a truck as being a video game with today’s technology. I wrestled the idea of my commitment to serving the state because I didn’t want to be on a team with people like that. I see it as being a feeding frenzy for blood thirsty wanna-be hard core soldiers because they get so excited about killing people. I might be missing the point here and these people are just excited about the greater good and helping their country. But please, tell me what you think is ging on here and explain why it’s so easy to miss the point."
"After our a close examination of just war theory with the legalist paradigm, jus ad bellum, jus in bello, Westphalia, The Moral Warrior, the focus on why you serve the state, is killing ever justified, etc. etc., it seems that a considerable amount of moral reasoning plays into the military on both a legal and personal level. As a class we go through scenarios on how to defend our position and explain the greater good we’re trying to accomplish as military leaders to, say, a hippie. It all seems pretty rational and reasonable to me. But why is it, then, that a considerable amount of the cadet and pilot population seems to have no grasp of the morality of the issues at hand. You’ve seen it, maybe you even get wrapped up in it and join the fun. One of the more popular (outside of Captain Strawser’s 310) responses to “why do you want to be a pilot” is “so I can blow shit up” and I’ve heard on more than one occasion from peers things like “I can’t wait until I graduate and can go kill people”. I’m not exaggerating, this is a real quote. Most of the time these people can’t even attempt to justify what they’re saying but sometimes I get the ‘but they’re not people they’re terrorists’ responses. I’ve talked to fighter pilots on ops and here for career day and many of them brag about killing people on the ground and in the air and dropping bombs on large targets. In a Law class last year a retired fighter pilot guest speaker complained about LOAC to the class saying that the proportionality laws merely got in their way. The best example I can think of if you don’t believe me is the video clips. They show them in a-hall. It’s a fighter and bomber clip with the most hardcore, heavy metal background music demonstrating air power with endless buildings blowing up left and right or pilots taking out people running around on the ground. And what do we do? We get excited, pumped up and start clapping or even cheering. In basic training on the fourth of July they showed a clip of bombs going off in the desert with that ‘brought to you courtesy of the red white and blue’ country music hit. People cheered. It seems like fighter pilots and cadets never even think about someone being inside that other airplane or that building or that truck. At the Academy we are in large distanced from the weight of killing. Most cadets don’t take killing people seriously because they’re ‘terrorists’ or civilians in the close proximity of terrorists. Initially, I was disgusted with the military for being so eager to kill people and not even weighing the seriousness of dropping bombs on cities. It is too easy to think of blowing up a truck as being a video game with today’s technology. I wrestled the idea of my commitment to serving the state because I didn’t want to be on a team with people like that. I see it as being a feeding frenzy for blood thirsty wanna-be hard core soldiers because they get so excited about killing people. I might be missing the point here and these people are just excited about the greater good and helping their country. But please, tell me what you think is ging on here and explain why it’s so easy to miss the point."
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
An ethical dillema... selling out to help the needy?
You work in a decision-making role in a community organization that works with deprived children. The organization faces a serious financial shortfall due to cuts in government funding it previously relied on and may need to cut back on its important work.
However, the organization has been approached by a major corporation offering to provide funding in support of its work. As part of the deal, the corporation has asked that it be arranged for some of the children to appear in a series of advertisements highlighting the 'good works' of the corporation.
The funding would be enough to not only overcome the current funding shortfall, but would also enable more work to be undertaken to help needy children. But to get the money your organization will have to put the children in the advertisements of this large corporation.
What do you do?
However, the organization has been approached by a major corporation offering to provide funding in support of its work. As part of the deal, the corporation has asked that it be arranged for some of the children to appear in a series of advertisements highlighting the 'good works' of the corporation.
The funding would be enough to not only overcome the current funding shortfall, but would also enable more work to be undertaken to help needy children. But to get the money your organization will have to put the children in the advertisements of this large corporation.
What do you do?
Horses... cows... is there a moral difference?
So check out this article from earlier in September.
Here.
Basically, the House passed a bill to stop the slaughtering of Horses in the US. What is curious is that no where in the article is the justification for such a ban ever even given. One can only assume that the writers (and passers) of the bill think that there is something wrong with slaughtering horses. But then I have to ask: What is the difference between slaughtering a horse and a cow?? Is there really any significant moral difference? I can't imagine there could be. Any takers?
Here.
Basically, the House passed a bill to stop the slaughtering of Horses in the US. What is curious is that no where in the article is the justification for such a ban ever even given. One can only assume that the writers (and passers) of the bill think that there is something wrong with slaughtering horses. But then I have to ask: What is the difference between slaughtering a horse and a cow?? Is there really any significant moral difference? I can't imagine there could be. Any takers?
Logic question
Check out this funny clip from the Daily Show
Here.
At one point Jon Stewart shows a Bill O'Reily clip and then mocks Bill's reasoning ability. From what I can tell, Jon's right: Bill's comments on the torture situation with Abu Ghraib constitute a logical fallcy... can you see it? I believe there is actually a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy in his argument. See if you can point it out.
Here.
At one point Jon Stewart shows a Bill O'Reily clip and then mocks Bill's reasoning ability. From what I can tell, Jon's right: Bill's comments on the torture situation with Abu Ghraib constitute a logical fallcy... can you see it? I believe there is actually a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy in his argument. See if you can point it out.
It happened again...
More Retired Generals came out against Rumsfeld yesterday.
See here.
What do you think? Is this any different than when the slew of them came out against the SecDef earlier in the Spring? It seems a bit different in this respect at least: it was at a Senate Committee meeting... but it was a Democratic Policy meeting... so is this just election cycle politics? More of the disgruntled Generals voicing legitimate complaints? And, of course, what implications does this have for on-going tough questions like the breakdown of trust between the civilian authority and military leadership?
See here.
What do you think? Is this any different than when the slew of them came out against the SecDef earlier in the Spring? It seems a bit different in this respect at least: it was at a Senate Committee meeting... but it was a Democratic Policy meeting... so is this just election cycle politics? More of the disgruntled Generals voicing legitimate complaints? And, of course, what implications does this have for on-going tough questions like the breakdown of trust between the civilian authority and military leadership?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Should we change our torture laws?
So check out this interesting animated political cartoon regarding the current debate going on in DC regarding US ratification of international laws (and the US's own laws) regarding war crimes and torture.
Here
If you disagree with the argument, first clarify what point you think the cartoonist is trying to make, then tell us why you disagree.
While you are at it, here's another one this same cartoonist did on the genocide in Sudan and how the slow pace of the UN only makes the situation worse.
Here
Here
If you disagree with the argument, first clarify what point you think the cartoonist is trying to make, then tell us why you disagree.
While you are at it, here's another one this same cartoonist did on the genocide in Sudan and how the slow pace of the UN only makes the situation worse.
Here
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
See what happens when you have a standing military?
We've got a coup on our hands...
Thailand's constitution just can't seem to hang around for very long at a stretch.
This raises the intriguing question... how come the U.S. constitution persists?
Thailand's constitution just can't seem to hang around for very long at a stretch.
This raises the intriguing question... how come the U.S. constitution persists?
Friday, September 15, 2006
Why not UAVs?
Here's a question?
Why don't we just move our Air Force technology to all remotely-manned planes? If a remotely controled plane is shot down, no pilot dies.... We could (with the proper investment in the research) improve the present technology to the point where the pilot flying the plane remotely could have the full range of visual awareness & control he/she would have in the cockpit (perhaps even better!).
Read this short piece on the debate:
Here.
What do you think? Do UAVs raise any ethical issues that a manned plane does not?
Why don't we just move our Air Force technology to all remotely-manned planes? If a remotely controled plane is shot down, no pilot dies.... We could (with the proper investment in the research) improve the present technology to the point where the pilot flying the plane remotely could have the full range of visual awareness & control he/she would have in the cockpit (perhaps even better!).
Read this short piece on the debate:
Here.
What do you think? Do UAVs raise any ethical issues that a manned plane does not?
Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Cold War, the GWOT, and a "long war" perspective
Here's a good read. It certainly relates to our discussions lately and issues surrounding US war policy more generally.
Monday, September 4, 2006
The (HUGE) US Nuclear Arsenal
It's a well known fact that the US has a massive nuclear arsenal -- still very much armed and active today. In light of the recent concerns over Iran's nuclear threat, perhaps we should pause and examine our own nuclear program. Here are some brief notes on its current strength:
See here and here.
Since the end of the cold war, there have been repeated calls for a major standdown of the large US nuclear arsenal.
See here, here, and here's another one.
My questions for you are:
What justifications do we have for having a nuclear force?
Why do we feel entitled to possessing nuclear arms yet we scream that Iran (and other such nations) cannot possess similiar weapons?
If you can find an argument for why we should be so entitled, can you offer any justification as to why we need a nuclear force of this massive size?
Do we really need such a monstrous nuclear arsenal?
See here and here.
Since the end of the cold war, there have been repeated calls for a major standdown of the large US nuclear arsenal.
See here, here, and here's another one.
My questions for you are:
What justifications do we have for having a nuclear force?
Why do we feel entitled to possessing nuclear arms yet we scream that Iran (and other such nations) cannot possess similiar weapons?
If you can find an argument for why we should be so entitled, can you offer any justification as to why we need a nuclear force of this massive size?
Do we really need such a monstrous nuclear arsenal?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Bombing Nazi Concentration Camps
Here's a good read to check out that I just got today. You may have heard that the U.S. considered bombing the concentration camps in Germany during WWII after we figured out what they really were. This here is a reproduction of the actual memo that was distrubuted within the War Office suggesting that we bomb the concentration camps. It, of course, raises all kinds of ethical questions. Ponder and respond however you'd like. The most curious thing may be that we did not end up bombing the camps. Many argue that we could have stopped much of the killing or at least slowed it down if we had. Here's a link to a short note about the knowledge of the allies of the camps and the debates over whether or not to bomb them.
See here.
What do you think? Would bombing the camps have made an appreciable difference? If so, should we have done it? Why didn't we? Would the inevitable killing of the prisoners by the bombing be justified since their fate was already sealed and we'd have been trying to stop further killing (as the case is made in this memo)?
WAR REFUGEE BOARD
Interoffice memorandum
June 29, 1944
By Cable No. 4041 of June 21, from Bern, McClelland, reporting of the deportation and extermination of Hungarian Jews, states that “there is little doubt that many of these Hungarian Jews are being sent to the extermination camps of AUSCHITZ [= Auschwitz] (OSWIECIM) and BIRKENAU (RAJSKA) in Western Upper Silesia where according to recent reports, since early summer 1942 at least 1,500,000 Jews have been killed. There is evidence that already in January 1944 preparations were being made to receive and exterminate Hungarian Jews in these camps”.
In view of the preeminent part evidently played by these two extermination camps in the massacre of Jews, equipped to kill 125,000 people per month, it would seem that the destruction of their physical installations might appreciably slow down the systematic slaughter at least temporarily. The methodical German mind might require some time to rebuild the installations or to evolve elsewhere equally efficient procedures of mass slaughter and of disposing of the bodies. Some saving of lives would therefore be a most likely result of the destruction of the two extermination camps.
Though no exaggerated hopes should be entertained, this saving of lives might even be quite appreciable, since, in the present stage of the war, with German manpower and material resources gravely depleted, German authorities might not be in a position to devote themselves to the task of equipping new large-scale extermination centers.
Aside from the preventive significance of the destruction of the two camps, it would also seem correct to mark them for destruction as a matter of principle, as the most tangible – and perhaps only tangible – evidence of the indignation aroused by the existence of these charnel-houses. It will also be noted that the destruction of the extermination camps would presumably cause many deaths among their personnel – certainly among the most ruthless and despicable of the Nazis.
It is suggested that the foregoing be brought to the attention of the appropriate political and military authorities, with a view to considering the feasibility of a thorough destruction of the two camps by aerial bombardment. It may be of interest, in this connection, that the two camps are situated in the industrial region of Upper Silesia, near the important mining and manufacturing centers of Katowice and Chorzom (Oswiecim lies about 14 miles southeast of Katowice), which play an important part in the industrial armament of Germany. Therefore, the destruction of these camps could be achieved without deflecting aerial strength from an important zone of military objectives.
Presumably, a large number of Jews in these camps may be killed in the course of such bombings (though some of them may escape in the confusion). But such Jews are doomed to death anyhow. The destruction of the camps would not change their fate, but it would serve as visible retribution on their murderers and it might save the lives of future victims.
It will be noted that the inevitable fate of Jews herded in ghettoes near the industrial and railroad installations in Hungary has not caused the United Nations to stop bombing these installations. It is submitted, therefore, that refraining from bombing the extermination centers would be sheer misplaced sentimentality, far more cruel than a decision to destroy these centers.
See here.
What do you think? Would bombing the camps have made an appreciable difference? If so, should we have done it? Why didn't we? Would the inevitable killing of the prisoners by the bombing be justified since their fate was already sealed and we'd have been trying to stop further killing (as the case is made in this memo)?
WAR REFUGEE BOARD
Interoffice memorandum
June 29, 1944
By Cable No. 4041 of June 21, from Bern, McClelland, reporting of the deportation and extermination of Hungarian Jews, states that “there is little doubt that many of these Hungarian Jews are being sent to the extermination camps of AUSCHITZ [= Auschwitz] (OSWIECIM) and BIRKENAU (RAJSKA) in Western Upper Silesia where according to recent reports, since early summer 1942 at least 1,500,000 Jews have been killed. There is evidence that already in January 1944 preparations were being made to receive and exterminate Hungarian Jews in these camps”.
In view of the preeminent part evidently played by these two extermination camps in the massacre of Jews, equipped to kill 125,000 people per month, it would seem that the destruction of their physical installations might appreciably slow down the systematic slaughter at least temporarily. The methodical German mind might require some time to rebuild the installations or to evolve elsewhere equally efficient procedures of mass slaughter and of disposing of the bodies. Some saving of lives would therefore be a most likely result of the destruction of the two extermination camps.
Though no exaggerated hopes should be entertained, this saving of lives might even be quite appreciable, since, in the present stage of the war, with German manpower and material resources gravely depleted, German authorities might not be in a position to devote themselves to the task of equipping new large-scale extermination centers.
Aside from the preventive significance of the destruction of the two camps, it would also seem correct to mark them for destruction as a matter of principle, as the most tangible – and perhaps only tangible – evidence of the indignation aroused by the existence of these charnel-houses. It will also be noted that the destruction of the extermination camps would presumably cause many deaths among their personnel – certainly among the most ruthless and despicable of the Nazis.
It is suggested that the foregoing be brought to the attention of the appropriate political and military authorities, with a view to considering the feasibility of a thorough destruction of the two camps by aerial bombardment. It may be of interest, in this connection, that the two camps are situated in the industrial region of Upper Silesia, near the important mining and manufacturing centers of Katowice and Chorzom (Oswiecim lies about 14 miles southeast of Katowice), which play an important part in the industrial armament of Germany. Therefore, the destruction of these camps could be achieved without deflecting aerial strength from an important zone of military objectives.
Presumably, a large number of Jews in these camps may be killed in the course of such bombings (though some of them may escape in the confusion). But such Jews are doomed to death anyhow. The destruction of the camps would not change their fate, but it would serve as visible retribution on their murderers and it might save the lives of future victims.
It will be noted that the inevitable fate of Jews herded in ghettoes near the industrial and railroad installations in Hungary has not caused the United Nations to stop bombing these installations. It is submitted, therefore, that refraining from bombing the extermination centers would be sheer misplaced sentimentality, far more cruel than a decision to destroy these centers.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The tricky business of airpower
Here's a good read on Airpower and how we often hold it in too high a light. As Air Force officers are we equally swayed by the fantasy of the "easy" airpower war? Do you agree with the article's thesis?
This article appeared in The Economist just last week.
The Economist
Aug 24th 2006
Airpower: An Enduring Illusion
Israel hoped air power would avoid the need for a ground war against Hizbullah. Not the first to be beguiled by bombs
Victory is not a matter of seizing territory, Dan Halutz once explained. It is a matter of “consciousness”. And air power, continued Israel's chief of staff, affects the adversary's consciousness significantly. Indeed, the very concept of the land battle is “anachronistic”. Lieut-General Halutz, an air-force man, is said to have persuaded Israel's militarily inexperienced prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that the task of destroying Hizbullah in Lebanon was the perfect job for aircraft.
It did not quite work out that way. Yet the seductive idea that air power can provide swift victory with light casualties has been around almost as long as the aeroplane itself.
The belief that a few bombs could spare all the bloody butcher's bill of infantry fighting proved especially appealing to many of the military men—and politicians—who had witnessed the horrors of the trenches in the first world war. Even if it meant inflicting civilian casualties, the prospect of a short, decisive war waged from the safety of the skies was far preferable to the spectacle of “morons volunteering to get hung in the wire and shot in the stomach in the mud of Flanders,” argued Arthur Harris, an airman who rose to become head of British bomber command in the second world war, earning himself the name of “Bomber” Harris for his relentless obliteration of German cities.
Airmen like Harris argued in the 1920s that armies could fight only other armies, whereas aircraft could strike right to the heart of the enemy's territory, crippling its ability and, more important, its will to wage war. Success, it was claimed, would come mostly through influencing the psychology of the enemy. The first chief of Britain's Royal Air Force, Hugh Trenchard, repeatedly asserted that the “moral effect” of bombing “stands in a proportion of 20 to one” to any physical destruction it might cause. Trenchard once even said that not bombing a town could be as effective as bombing it: “The anxiety as to whether an attack is likely to take place is probably just as demoralising as the attack itself.”
Although it was the potential of air power in large wars that galvanised such thinking, airmen were also quick to argue that aircraft could be equally potent in small wars against irregular or guerrilla forces. An early opportunity to put this to the test presented itself in 1919 when the Emir of Afghanistan declared jihad against Britain's forces in the North-West Frontier Province. The RAF shipped a single Handley Page biplane bomber to Karachi. It flew over Kabul and dropped four 112lb bombs and 16 20-pounders. The emir sued for peace shortly thereafter.
The political capital and prestige which the RAF reaped from the incident were enormous. Basil Liddell Hart, a military writer, declared that “Napoleon's presence was said to be worth an army corps, but this aeroplane seems to have achieved more than 60,000 men did.”
The RAF repeated its triumph to much éclat the next year. This time the target was Mohammed bin Abdullah Hassan, the “Mad Mullah” of Somaliland. The mullah, a precocious Muslim fanatic, had been a thorn in the side of the British for decades. He had adopted a particularly puritanical form of Islam after a pilgrimage to Mecca, which inspired him on his return home in 1895 to emulate the Mahdi who had defied the British in Sudan. The British army then sent four expeditions to Somaliland to try to deal with the mullah, the last one involving 15,000 troops. Each time the mullah regrouped. In 1909 his men, waging a jihad against local tribesmen who had accepted British rule, slaughtered a third of the territory's inhabitants.
When the War Office balked at repeating the effort yet again, the war minister, Winston Churchill, proposed to have the RAF do it. Six small aircraft were ferried to East Africa on warships, the mullah's fort was bombed for two days, and a month later it was all over. Churchill crowed in Parliament that the previous land expedition had cost the Treasury £6m—about £120m ($220m) in today's money; the RAF had done the job for £77,000.
But there were hints even amid the glee that the truth was murkier. The mullah was never captured. He and 700 riflemen slipped out of the country only after being pursued by ground forces, whose commander dismissed the airmen's claims of victory as “something of a hoax”. The bombing, he said, had actually made his work harder by dispersing the enemy.
Something approaching a mystique, though, soon began to surround the claims of the airmen. When, in 1922, the RAF was given the job of maintaining British authority in Iraq by similar means—by then the formal name had become air control or air policing—the airmen insisted that only they were qualified to judge just when and where to strike to achieve the exact psychological effect required to bring insurgents to heel. The local British army commander sarcastically described the RAF “appearing from God knows where, dropping their bombs on God knows what, and going off again God knows where.” He had a point. Although the RAF claimed it could hit the house of a particular sheikh in a particular village, the airmen often failed to get even half their bombs to land within the village at all.
But the saving in money and lives of troops swept aside most criticism. To the objection that little logic seemed to lie behind their choice of targets, the air commanders merely insisted that their real target was a concept—enemy morale and will—rather than any particular physical object. That proved to be a remarkably resilient theme over the decades. “Bomber” Harris, more honest than many of the Allied air commanders of the second world war when it came to acknowledging the imprecision of the bombing technology of the day, conceded that it was not possible accurately to destroy from the air any targets smaller than a few square miles. For that reason, he argued, the right targets to hit were the only things that were bigger—ie, entire cities. This, he insisted, would win the war.
The possibility that air power would make a ground invasion of France unnecessary tantalised some American politicians right up to the Normandy landings. Harris, too, continued to press his case, even during the final planning for D-day. “Harris told us how well he might have won the war had it not been for the handicap imposed by the existence of the other two services,” commented General Alan Brooke, an army compatriot, after one pre-invasion conference of top commanders.
Similarly, 20 years on, when some of Lyndon Johnson's advisers objected that bombing North Vietnam's factories and rail lines would not do much harm to an agrarian country in which industry accounted for only 12% of its minuscule GNP, America's air-force chiefs argued that since its industrial sector was so small, the country was that much more dependent on it, and would suffer all the more if it were destroyed. In fact, the North Vietnamese responded to the bombing of their oil tanks and railways by dispersing fuel across the country in small drums and hauling supplies around on bicycles. But zapping railways, factories and oil tanks was something the air force knew how to do.
By that time bombing, whether effective or not, seemed much more attractive than sending in more troops. As America's ground forces in Vietnam found themselves increasingly impotent against an elusive and resourceful foe, the military commanders proposed endless variations on the same bombing strategy that had so far failed. Johnson one day dressed down the army chief of staff in front of his underlings: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, that's all you know. Well, I want to know why there's nothing else. You're not giving me any ideas for this damn little pissant country. Now, I don't need ten generals to come in here ten times and tell me to bomb.”
The coming of age of precision guidance did sharply change conventional warfare involving conventional armies, as the two Gulf wars showed: aircraft were able to destroy hundreds of armoured vehicles and paralyse Saddam Hussein's ground forces well before they could engage American or British ground troops. And as NATO's air campaign against Serbia showed in 1999, precision weapons can nowadays destroy selected targets, even in the heart of cities, without causing a thousandth of the civilian casualties that were routine in the second world war.
But when it comes to rooting out guerrillas and insurgents, wishful thinking still tends to outweigh technological capabilities. A study of the use of air power in small wars over the past century by James Corum and Wray Johnson, two former professors at the American air force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, concluded that insurgents and terrorists “rarely present lucrative targets for aerial attack”. Air power has been used to greatest effect in such campaigns only indirectly: to gather intelligence, move troops or maintain communication.
And as others besides the Israelis have found, trying to wage an air campaign against irregular forces is especially vulnerable to the backlash that invariably arises as civilian casualties mount. Since terrorists and guerrillas blend into the civilian population, fight in small units and rely on surprise and mobility, accurate and timely intelligence is crucial, and bad intelligence always results in civilian casualties, sometimes lots of them. Moreover, dropping a bomb in an urban area, even when the intelligence is correct, and even when the bomb is precision-guided, is likely to kill innocent neighbours.
Israel's excellent intelligence in the occupied territories has enabled it to carry out lethally successful precision air strikes against the leaders of Hamas and other outfits there. But even these attacks have often resulted in casualties to bystanders. In Lebanon the Israeli air force found itself in the worst of both worlds, killing civilians without achieving military objectives. No crucial Hizbullah leaders were killed and almost none of their mobile rocket-launchers were destroyed. Only the fixed launchers for their longer-range missiles north of the Litani river appear to have been much damaged.
Not by bombs alone
Israel was hoping, through its use of air power in Lebanon, not just to hammer an irregular guerrilla force; it was also seeking to put pressure on the Lebanese government and others to disarm Hizbullah and secure its southern border. In this General Halutz was said to have been strongly influenced by NATO's war of psychological pressure against Slobodan Milosevic, which aimed to force the Serb dictator to take a specific action—pull out of Kosovo and halt his ethnic cleansing—through an air campaign that kept ratcheting up the costs by destroying power plants, bridges, factories and other bits of infrastructure.
But, in the end, Israel found that even in a war that hinged on psychology and “consciousness”, air power had inherent limitations. In the 48 hours before the ceasefire went into effect, Israel sent a surge of ground troops into southern Lebanon to engage in the “anachronistic” pursuit of seizing territory—precisely in order to create the conscious perception of tangible military victory that air power alone had failed to deliver. The truly smart bomb remains as elusive as the silver bullet.
This article appeared in The Economist just last week.
The Economist
Aug 24th 2006
Airpower: An Enduring Illusion
Israel hoped air power would avoid the need for a ground war against Hizbullah. Not the first to be beguiled by bombs
Victory is not a matter of seizing territory, Dan Halutz once explained. It is a matter of “consciousness”. And air power, continued Israel's chief of staff, affects the adversary's consciousness significantly. Indeed, the very concept of the land battle is “anachronistic”. Lieut-General Halutz, an air-force man, is said to have persuaded Israel's militarily inexperienced prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that the task of destroying Hizbullah in Lebanon was the perfect job for aircraft.
It did not quite work out that way. Yet the seductive idea that air power can provide swift victory with light casualties has been around almost as long as the aeroplane itself.
The belief that a few bombs could spare all the bloody butcher's bill of infantry fighting proved especially appealing to many of the military men—and politicians—who had witnessed the horrors of the trenches in the first world war. Even if it meant inflicting civilian casualties, the prospect of a short, decisive war waged from the safety of the skies was far preferable to the spectacle of “morons volunteering to get hung in the wire and shot in the stomach in the mud of Flanders,” argued Arthur Harris, an airman who rose to become head of British bomber command in the second world war, earning himself the name of “Bomber” Harris for his relentless obliteration of German cities.
Airmen like Harris argued in the 1920s that armies could fight only other armies, whereas aircraft could strike right to the heart of the enemy's territory, crippling its ability and, more important, its will to wage war. Success, it was claimed, would come mostly through influencing the psychology of the enemy. The first chief of Britain's Royal Air Force, Hugh Trenchard, repeatedly asserted that the “moral effect” of bombing “stands in a proportion of 20 to one” to any physical destruction it might cause. Trenchard once even said that not bombing a town could be as effective as bombing it: “The anxiety as to whether an attack is likely to take place is probably just as demoralising as the attack itself.”
Although it was the potential of air power in large wars that galvanised such thinking, airmen were also quick to argue that aircraft could be equally potent in small wars against irregular or guerrilla forces. An early opportunity to put this to the test presented itself in 1919 when the Emir of Afghanistan declared jihad against Britain's forces in the North-West Frontier Province. The RAF shipped a single Handley Page biplane bomber to Karachi. It flew over Kabul and dropped four 112lb bombs and 16 20-pounders. The emir sued for peace shortly thereafter.
The political capital and prestige which the RAF reaped from the incident were enormous. Basil Liddell Hart, a military writer, declared that “Napoleon's presence was said to be worth an army corps, but this aeroplane seems to have achieved more than 60,000 men did.”
The RAF repeated its triumph to much éclat the next year. This time the target was Mohammed bin Abdullah Hassan, the “Mad Mullah” of Somaliland. The mullah, a precocious Muslim fanatic, had been a thorn in the side of the British for decades. He had adopted a particularly puritanical form of Islam after a pilgrimage to Mecca, which inspired him on his return home in 1895 to emulate the Mahdi who had defied the British in Sudan. The British army then sent four expeditions to Somaliland to try to deal with the mullah, the last one involving 15,000 troops. Each time the mullah regrouped. In 1909 his men, waging a jihad against local tribesmen who had accepted British rule, slaughtered a third of the territory's inhabitants.
When the War Office balked at repeating the effort yet again, the war minister, Winston Churchill, proposed to have the RAF do it. Six small aircraft were ferried to East Africa on warships, the mullah's fort was bombed for two days, and a month later it was all over. Churchill crowed in Parliament that the previous land expedition had cost the Treasury £6m—about £120m ($220m) in today's money; the RAF had done the job for £77,000.
But there were hints even amid the glee that the truth was murkier. The mullah was never captured. He and 700 riflemen slipped out of the country only after being pursued by ground forces, whose commander dismissed the airmen's claims of victory as “something of a hoax”. The bombing, he said, had actually made his work harder by dispersing the enemy.
Something approaching a mystique, though, soon began to surround the claims of the airmen. When, in 1922, the RAF was given the job of maintaining British authority in Iraq by similar means—by then the formal name had become air control or air policing—the airmen insisted that only they were qualified to judge just when and where to strike to achieve the exact psychological effect required to bring insurgents to heel. The local British army commander sarcastically described the RAF “appearing from God knows where, dropping their bombs on God knows what, and going off again God knows where.” He had a point. Although the RAF claimed it could hit the house of a particular sheikh in a particular village, the airmen often failed to get even half their bombs to land within the village at all.
But the saving in money and lives of troops swept aside most criticism. To the objection that little logic seemed to lie behind their choice of targets, the air commanders merely insisted that their real target was a concept—enemy morale and will—rather than any particular physical object. That proved to be a remarkably resilient theme over the decades. “Bomber” Harris, more honest than many of the Allied air commanders of the second world war when it came to acknowledging the imprecision of the bombing technology of the day, conceded that it was not possible accurately to destroy from the air any targets smaller than a few square miles. For that reason, he argued, the right targets to hit were the only things that were bigger—ie, entire cities. This, he insisted, would win the war.
The possibility that air power would make a ground invasion of France unnecessary tantalised some American politicians right up to the Normandy landings. Harris, too, continued to press his case, even during the final planning for D-day. “Harris told us how well he might have won the war had it not been for the handicap imposed by the existence of the other two services,” commented General Alan Brooke, an army compatriot, after one pre-invasion conference of top commanders.
Similarly, 20 years on, when some of Lyndon Johnson's advisers objected that bombing North Vietnam's factories and rail lines would not do much harm to an agrarian country in which industry accounted for only 12% of its minuscule GNP, America's air-force chiefs argued that since its industrial sector was so small, the country was that much more dependent on it, and would suffer all the more if it were destroyed. In fact, the North Vietnamese responded to the bombing of their oil tanks and railways by dispersing fuel across the country in small drums and hauling supplies around on bicycles. But zapping railways, factories and oil tanks was something the air force knew how to do.
By that time bombing, whether effective or not, seemed much more attractive than sending in more troops. As America's ground forces in Vietnam found themselves increasingly impotent against an elusive and resourceful foe, the military commanders proposed endless variations on the same bombing strategy that had so far failed. Johnson one day dressed down the army chief of staff in front of his underlings: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, that's all you know. Well, I want to know why there's nothing else. You're not giving me any ideas for this damn little pissant country. Now, I don't need ten generals to come in here ten times and tell me to bomb.”
The coming of age of precision guidance did sharply change conventional warfare involving conventional armies, as the two Gulf wars showed: aircraft were able to destroy hundreds of armoured vehicles and paralyse Saddam Hussein's ground forces well before they could engage American or British ground troops. And as NATO's air campaign against Serbia showed in 1999, precision weapons can nowadays destroy selected targets, even in the heart of cities, without causing a thousandth of the civilian casualties that were routine in the second world war.
But when it comes to rooting out guerrillas and insurgents, wishful thinking still tends to outweigh technological capabilities. A study of the use of air power in small wars over the past century by James Corum and Wray Johnson, two former professors at the American air force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, concluded that insurgents and terrorists “rarely present lucrative targets for aerial attack”. Air power has been used to greatest effect in such campaigns only indirectly: to gather intelligence, move troops or maintain communication.
And as others besides the Israelis have found, trying to wage an air campaign against irregular forces is especially vulnerable to the backlash that invariably arises as civilian casualties mount. Since terrorists and guerrillas blend into the civilian population, fight in small units and rely on surprise and mobility, accurate and timely intelligence is crucial, and bad intelligence always results in civilian casualties, sometimes lots of them. Moreover, dropping a bomb in an urban area, even when the intelligence is correct, and even when the bomb is precision-guided, is likely to kill innocent neighbours.
Israel's excellent intelligence in the occupied territories has enabled it to carry out lethally successful precision air strikes against the leaders of Hamas and other outfits there. But even these attacks have often resulted in casualties to bystanders. In Lebanon the Israeli air force found itself in the worst of both worlds, killing civilians without achieving military objectives. No crucial Hizbullah leaders were killed and almost none of their mobile rocket-launchers were destroyed. Only the fixed launchers for their longer-range missiles north of the Litani river appear to have been much damaged.
Not by bombs alone
Israel was hoping, through its use of air power in Lebanon, not just to hammer an irregular guerrilla force; it was also seeking to put pressure on the Lebanese government and others to disarm Hizbullah and secure its southern border. In this General Halutz was said to have been strongly influenced by NATO's war of psychological pressure against Slobodan Milosevic, which aimed to force the Serb dictator to take a specific action—pull out of Kosovo and halt his ethnic cleansing—through an air campaign that kept ratcheting up the costs by destroying power plants, bridges, factories and other bits of infrastructure.
But, in the end, Israel found that even in a war that hinged on psychology and “consciousness”, air power had inherent limitations. In the 48 hours before the ceasefire went into effect, Israel sent a surge of ground troops into southern Lebanon to engage in the “anachronistic” pursuit of seizing territory—precisely in order to create the conscious perception of tangible military victory that air power alone had failed to deliver. The truly smart bomb remains as elusive as the silver bullet.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
A stranger or your dog
In the following scenario imagine you are in some weird situation wherein you can only save one of the the two options given in each question. There is no possible way to save both, nor would sacrificing yourself help in any way towards saving them and they will both die. If you do nothing, they will both die (and, I suppose, that is an option). You know that when you save one of them, the other will most certainly die (or be destroyed). Assume there is no other relevant information than that given for each question (i.e., in the child or adult question, assume they have the same status otherwise in all ways that may affect your decision, the only difference being that one is a child and one is an adult).
You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
k) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time
l) A child or a 95-year old adult
m) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
n) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not brain dead).
o) Lassie or Hitler
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different):
1) what do you think you would actually do and
2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through o) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
You can only rescue one of each of the following, which do you save?
a) A child or an adult
b) A stranger or your dog
c) Your entire family or the entire canine species
d) A bottle with the cure for cancer or your brother
e) Lassie or A Convicted Murderer/Rapist
f) Your spouse or a Nobel Laureate
g) A petry dish with 15 fertilized human eggs or 1 small child
h) A dog or a rat
i) A dog or a fish
j) A dog or a human being on life support who has been declared "brain dead"
k) Your spouse or the greatest artist of all time
l) A child or a 95-year old adult
m) A stranger or the greatest piece of art ever created by human hands
n) A dog or a human being on life support in a perpetual coma (with no chance of ever coming out of the coma, although they are not brain dead).
o) Lassie or Hitler
Perhaps we can give two answers to each (if they are different):
1) what do you think you would actually do and
2) what do you think should or ought to do.
Now, after you've answered a) through o) can you provide some kind of principles or basis upon which you are guiding your decision making? Are the decisions consistent with one another? Are the principles consistent?
Friday, August 18, 2006
A thought experiment on Justice
Here's a fun thought experiment for you guys to check out. Later in the semester we'll be getting deep into issues regarding social justice and the ordering of society. This little scenario will get us thinking down that road now and "till the soil" of our minds for these issues to come. Here's the situation:
You are the judge and sheriff of a small town. A man has been sentenced to prison for armed robbery, and admits guilt for the deed. "But," he argues,"I'll never do anything of the kind again. In fact, I'll never break the law again in any way, shape, or form. I'm not insane or a danger to society. I would be happier out of jail than in. My wife depends on me for support and she and the children would be far happier if I were able to be the family breadwinner again. As to the influence on others, almost no one would ever know about it; you can keep the matter out of the newspapers and no one except you will ever know that the crime was committed. In fact, I'll move to another town and never be heard from again. I understand what I did was wrong and I am a repentent, reformed man. Therefore, you should release me."
Assume for the moment that every claim he just made above is 100% true and that somehow you have epistemic access to this truth (that is, you can somehow know that everything he just claimed is true). So, assuming he's correct, what do you do? You have the power to release him and (like he claimed) no one else would ever know about it.
If your answer is that he should go to jail anyway... WHY? What reasons could we possibly have for that consequence?
You are the judge and sheriff of a small town. A man has been sentenced to prison for armed robbery, and admits guilt for the deed. "But," he argues,"I'll never do anything of the kind again. In fact, I'll never break the law again in any way, shape, or form. I'm not insane or a danger to society. I would be happier out of jail than in. My wife depends on me for support and she and the children would be far happier if I were able to be the family breadwinner again. As to the influence on others, almost no one would ever know about it; you can keep the matter out of the newspapers and no one except you will ever know that the crime was committed. In fact, I'll move to another town and never be heard from again. I understand what I did was wrong and I am a repentent, reformed man. Therefore, you should release me."
Assume for the moment that every claim he just made above is 100% true and that somehow you have epistemic access to this truth (that is, you can somehow know that everything he just claimed is true). So, assuming he's correct, what do you do? You have the power to release him and (like he claimed) no one else would ever know about it.
If your answer is that he should go to jail anyway... WHY? What reasons could we possibly have for that consequence?
Thursday, August 17, 2006
George Galloway
Watch this short interview by Sky News of George Galloway.
Here.
Respond however you'd like. If you agree, make a case to defend his position. If you disagree, give arguments to show why he is wrong or point out flaws in his premises or reasoning. It's tricky: someone like Galloway is effective with his rhetoric and oratory skill, so you have to dig through his words to see the arguments that underlie his passion. The arguments are there, you just have to find them. In fact, that would be a great response to this if someone (or a couple of you) would like to lay out his argument(s) in clear premises and conclusions.
Here.
Respond however you'd like. If you agree, make a case to defend his position. If you disagree, give arguments to show why he is wrong or point out flaws in his premises or reasoning. It's tricky: someone like Galloway is effective with his rhetoric and oratory skill, so you have to dig through his words to see the arguments that underlie his passion. The arguments are there, you just have to find them. In fact, that would be a great response to this if someone (or a couple of you) would like to lay out his argument(s) in clear premises and conclusions.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Guest Post on intellectual honesty
I’m posting this on behalf of Larry Burtoft (PhD, Ethics, USC). I’m curious to see if any cadets will rise up to respond to his challenge here. Essentially, he’s curious if any of you can even approach the issues of Just-War, pacifism, etc. with intellectual honesty given your various commitments (particularly since you juniors and above are now committed to the military). Is any pacifist position even a "live" option to any of you? Is it even possible it is the correct position? If the answer to those are questions is no... then is engaging this debate just a waste of time? Here are Dr. Burtoft’s questions. Feel free to respond to 1, or 2, or both.
Dr. Burtoft asks:
Dr. Burtoft asks:
- Can you really debate the just war/pacifism issue with integrity, given your current commitment to military service, and the fact that the goal of graduation, commissioning and a good salary is in sight? There are so many forces at work within you, as well as outside, that militate (!) against any semblance of objectivity. After all, what would you say to your parents, who have sacrificed so much to help you get where you are today? Then there are your fellow classmates and friends; what would they think? Again, what about the debt you would incur for not fulfilling your service commitment? With all of this - not to mention the problem of figuring out what you would do if you were not to become an officer - can you seriously believe that you have the courage to seriously entertain the pacifist position? It is highly doubtful.
- If you somehow could convince yourself that you could muster the courage to engage the debate with integrity, just what argument would convince you that the use of governmentally authorized lethal force is immoral? Again, it is highly doubtful, given your situation, that you can imagine such a scenario. You are simply psychologically predisposed and conditioned to think that unjust violence justifies the response of, well, justified violence. After all, can you imagine not responding as Israel is currently doing to the terrorist attacks by Hezbollah? Doesn't any and every possible pacifist argument strike you as the thinking of a "moral moron," to quote the Jewish Just War proponent, Dennis Prager? Is it really possible to seriously entertain pacifism? If not, then isn't the academic discussion mere word play and irrelevant frivolity?
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Should we teach on torture?
So there I was...
sitting in one of our philosophy department "brown bag" meetings sometime last year at UCONN -- I believe Dr. Kupperman was presenting a talk on utilitarianism -- and an interesting conversation came up regarding the education of military members on tough ethical issues.
Needless to say, I was interested.
Basically, a small debate arose over whether or not we should even teach future military members about unethical practices such as torture. (I think the disagreement was between Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Kupperman if I recall correctly).
One side thought that if we bring something like torture into the (relatively) sterile classroom environment, then eventually the students examining it in this type of environment become de-senitized to it. The idea being that if we teach military students about torture, then it can make it seem more normal -- once you start analyzing something like torture, the more and more normal it can begin to sound. The fear being, of course, that then if those military folks are later in a situation where torture is brought up, it will be considered a more normal option -- it is now something "on the table," as it were. They've considered it, weighed it, discussed it... it's part of the conversation. So, this position went on, they would rather a military education classroom never even discuss torture -- don't even give it that normalcy. By discussing something we are opening the can on it. The folks holding this position were rather passionate about it: "The last thing you'd ever want to do is teach military members about torture!"
The opposing position, of course, was sincerely convinced that military members are precisely the folks who need to deeply analyze, debate, and converse over tough topics such as torture. The idea here being that if/when that military member is later presented with a torture situation they are better equiped to handle it and rationally deliberate on it (and hopefully be more likely to make the right decision).
Obviously,it should be clear enough where I fall on this. If I was convinced by the first position (we'll call it the "don't normalize it" position) then I certainly wouldn't be teaching future military officers about the ethics of war. But I remember thinking then and now again as I reflect on it, the argument does indeed raise some interesting questions.
A good parrallel, I think, is to be found in marriage. Many couples I know suggest and a lot of the advice you hear or read from marriage "experts" is for couples to to literally never even bring up the "D" word. The idea is that once you start talking about divorce (what it would be like, what we would do if we got divorced, how we would handle it, what is divorce's moral status, etc, etc) you've put the option on the table. By even talking about divorce a couple makes it that much more likely that the option will happen because the option slowly becomes more and more normalized and plausible as it is discussed.
So... If it's smart to never even bring up the "D" word in marriage, then perhaps it's wise to never bring up the "T" word (and others, one would presume) in the military.
I'm not convinced... but it is a curious argument. Any takers? Any defenders of the "don't normalize it" position? Any good arguments on why this position (and parallel positions, perhaps) fail?
sitting in one of our philosophy department "brown bag" meetings sometime last year at UCONN -- I believe Dr. Kupperman was presenting a talk on utilitarianism -- and an interesting conversation came up regarding the education of military members on tough ethical issues.
Needless to say, I was interested.
Basically, a small debate arose over whether or not we should even teach future military members about unethical practices such as torture. (I think the disagreement was between Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Kupperman if I recall correctly).
One side thought that if we bring something like torture into the (relatively) sterile classroom environment, then eventually the students examining it in this type of environment become de-senitized to it. The idea being that if we teach military students about torture, then it can make it seem more normal -- once you start analyzing something like torture, the more and more normal it can begin to sound. The fear being, of course, that then if those military folks are later in a situation where torture is brought up, it will be considered a more normal option -- it is now something "on the table," as it were. They've considered it, weighed it, discussed it... it's part of the conversation. So, this position went on, they would rather a military education classroom never even discuss torture -- don't even give it that normalcy. By discussing something we are opening the can on it. The folks holding this position were rather passionate about it: "The last thing you'd ever want to do is teach military members about torture!"
The opposing position, of course, was sincerely convinced that military members are precisely the folks who need to deeply analyze, debate, and converse over tough topics such as torture. The idea here being that if/when that military member is later presented with a torture situation they are better equiped to handle it and rationally deliberate on it (and hopefully be more likely to make the right decision).
Obviously,it should be clear enough where I fall on this. If I was convinced by the first position (we'll call it the "don't normalize it" position) then I certainly wouldn't be teaching future military officers about the ethics of war. But I remember thinking then and now again as I reflect on it, the argument does indeed raise some interesting questions.
A good parrallel, I think, is to be found in marriage. Many couples I know suggest and a lot of the advice you hear or read from marriage "experts" is for couples to to literally never even bring up the "D" word. The idea is that once you start talking about divorce (what it would be like, what we would do if we got divorced, how we would handle it, what is divorce's moral status, etc, etc) you've put the option on the table. By even talking about divorce a couple makes it that much more likely that the option will happen because the option slowly becomes more and more normalized and plausible as it is discussed.
So... If it's smart to never even bring up the "D" word in marriage, then perhaps it's wise to never bring up the "T" word (and others, one would presume) in the military.
I'm not convinced... but it is a curious argument. Any takers? Any defenders of the "don't normalize it" position? Any good arguments on why this position (and parallel positions, perhaps) fail?
Thursday, July 13, 2006
First Post
Thanks for checking out this blog.
The purpose of this blog is to facilitate discussion and debate over Just-War Theory issues amongst cadets that I teach in my Ethics class here at the United States Air Force Academy. Please feel free to comment and interact.
The purpose of this blog is to facilitate discussion and debate over Just-War Theory issues amongst cadets that I teach in my Ethics class here at the United States Air Force Academy. Please feel free to comment and interact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
