I agree that we all have a choice and that blaming others for our actions or inactions is wrong. However, the statement may be an over simplification. One issue with the statement is that it assumes that everyone believes that they have the freedom to choose, which is not always the case.
People in the military are taught that they must follow orders. This is pounded into their heads throughout basic training. Following orders is supposed to keep things running smoothly and keep people safe, even when the soldiers do not agree with the orders being given. The men that took part in what happened at Abu Ghraib prison may have felt that they did not have the freedom to make a choice. They were following orders, exactly as they were trained to do. Most soldiers do not even think about the orders they are being given they simply follow them. In some ways it is almost robotic and it is clear that critical thinking is not a part of following orders.
The statement also assumes that the person making the choice understands what is right and what is wrong. A military person could also make an immoral choice while believing that they are making a moral one due to their training. They are trained to believe that disobedience could result in someone getting hurt, a court martial, a loss in rank, or even a dishonorable discharge. This makes them very susceptible to a fallacious argument appealing to their fear. The fear of the men working at Abu Ghraib prison could have been for themselves or it could have been for others. The military personal at the prison were dealing with men that were believed to be or have information about terrorist activity. The military people involved may have believed that making these men talk by any means possi...
... middle of paper ...
...ly and without question. We have the power to think critically, but we fail to use it. We allow someone else to take charge of our decisions. In some kind of ironic twist we make a choice by failing to make one.
I believe that in a perfect world we would all know that we have a choice and we would all be able to make the right and moral choice, regardless of anything else. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Sometimes we feel that our hands are tied, even when they are not and sometimes we allow ourselves to be manipulated by other people. There are also times when we allow our emotions to dictate our actions, when we should be giving our choices some critical thought. In the end the one thing that holds true is that making choices can be difficult and when people appeal to our fears or other emotions they can easily lead us astray if we let them.
O’Brien also alludes to the fact that these soldiers were basically plucked from their homes , given some BDU’s and an M-16A1, perhaps a frag grenade or a Wille Pete (white phosphorus) grenade, and kicked out of a helicopter over the jungle. They weren’t there because they wanted to be there. They were there because of fear. Whether it was fear of the law, fear of embarrassment, or fear of disappointing those around them, fear was their only motivation.
The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior;
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Stanley Milgram, author of "The Perils of Obedience," conducted an experiment at Yale University to see if average citizens would partake in a study revolving around obedience to authority (Milgram 78). In said experiment, a professor from Yale would give an ordinary individual the authority to shock another person. If the ordinary individual asked to stop, the professor would coax them to continue and remind them they hold no responsibility (78). Not only did Milgram 's study revolve around obedience to authority, it also stressed the point of every person could be capable of torture and doing so without feeling responsible. In the article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," author Marianne Szegedy-Maszak states, anyone can
Lakoff approaches the subject, stating that, “The linguistic habits that soldiers are must absorb in order to fight make atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable.” It is a little strong to say that it is inevitable, but it does raise the point that this type of language does blur the line. If we are training soldiers to see the enemy as non-human, then why are we surprised when they treat the enemy inhumanely? While it is probably safe to say the majority of our soldiers are not distanced enough from reality to commit horrendous acts such as torture, we are opening the gateway for these things to occur. When the issues aren’t so cut and dry, we look to our political leaders to inform us of what really happened. If one doesn’t think critically when given this information, they can easily be fooled into believing something that is either untrue, or only given half of the story. Orwell says that political parties can use words that are “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable…” It is not a rare occurrence for the government to attempt to sugar coat the information in order to deceive the general public. When something horrible happens during times of war, we either quickly justify it, or we remain uneducated on what is actually happening around
When someone finds themself in a life-or-death situation, their judgement becomes clouded. People can make a decision that they may regret in the long run, but it has saved their life. Most of the time, these people do things that they don’t know enough about- leading to clouded judgement in life-or-death situations. They do not inform themselves as much as they should, and they decide to do something that would put them in threat of danger. People take risks every day, they know what these risks are- but they still choose to go through with their actions. People in life-or-death situations should be held accountable for their actions because they have control over putting themselves in these types of situations that have any risk.
When looking at the definition of morally, you have to see that the action of killing someone is allowable when you view the saving of the many people that takes place. NOW is when you must view the difference between realism and philosophy…ism? Realistically, moments that this resolution might come into play would be "heat of the moment" times. You must first realize that the person who kills the innocent to save the many innocent KNOWS that he is attempting to save the many innocent people… This alone makes the action allowable. It IS a good thing to save many people even if you have to hurt someone else to do it. As far as good "judgment" goes, saving the most people is the right thing to do which goes for both realistically and
may be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is that
...in down on the square. People in the crowd collapse like levees in a flood” (p.214). The bullets “rain down” onto the people which meant it was basically a free for all; the soldiers just fired like it’s a casual thing to do. They don’t even feel sorry about the all the people they are killing. The people there had job, friends, families, and a life, but the soldiers were following orders. I felt a sense of rage, and anger when I read this. I question if the soldiers have any moral because they had a choice of obeying or disobeying their orders.
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
In order for a military to execute its function, every platform of the chain of command must expect and demand obedience to commands (Montrose, 2013), because if this does not happen many lives can be at stake. A simply failure to comply with the orders given can not only jeopardize the lives of the soldiers, it can compromise the safety of all military personnel involved, even in the matter of national security. Utilitarianism has a core theory that some actions may be considered right or wrong relying on the effects of the outcomes. This theory is mostly what could be applied this situation of the detainees in the military prisons. During this time, national security was weak, the country was being attacked and threatened, and thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives. The military could was only looking out for the interest of the country and many interrogation techniques were used to get information that could lead the capture of Al-Qaeda leaders. Soldiers are sent to warzones without the ability to deny their own obligation to war, just because they believe it to be morally wrong. They are sent and receive orders under the assumption the government has all the information needed to make the best decision for the country. According to the periodical, Unjust War and a Soldier’s Moral Dilemma, individual soldiers who have
Therefore we are not free to act as we wish due to our actions being
It is difficult to make decisions and have intellectual judgment. Decisions are at times influenced by personal experiences, information presented, emotion, amongst other numerous factors, therefore it is a lengthy process. Even when a person is trying to make the best decision it may be the “wrong” choice due to the fact that it negatively impacts other people. For instance, allowing a person to bend the rules a bit may seem innocent, but it may hinder the other people that are following the rules (such as allowing someone to use the computer longer than what their allotted time
... the best decision that people can possibly make. People need and should be informed about this mistaken belief.