Image via Wikipedia
In 2009 Major Hasan is alleged to have killed 12 soldiers and one civilian at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas. In 2007 he presented “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military” During his presentation he said that “it’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” Based on this, he recommended that the “Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” In light of the deaths at Fort Hood, perhaps his recommendation should have been taken quite seriously.
While this event is a recent one, the idea of being a conscientious objector is a rather old one. Also, the question of obedience is an even older one, dating back in terms of philosophical discussion to at least Plato’s Crito.
While Socrates is not discussing military service in the Crito, he does discuss the moral question of whether a citizen should obey the commands of the state or not. In Socrates’s case, he is in prison and awaiting his execution. His friends, lead by Crito, have arrived with a plan to spring him from jail and go to another city state. Socrates refuses to flee and, like all good philosophers, decides to spend the final moments of his life in philosophical argumentation.
While he presents three distinct arguments, the two that are relevant to the matter at hand can be presented in the following condensed versions. The argument that does not apply here is his argument that he could have chosen exile during his trial and hence would appear foolish to run away.
One argument can be classified as the benefit argument: Socrates argues that since the state benefited him and he freely accepted these benefits, then he owes the state his obedience. A second argument, the contract argument, is that by remaining in the city of Athens by his own free choice he thereby agreed to obey the laws of that city. Socrates does, however, add two important conditions: the state cannot trick or force people to remain and still expect their obedience. But, once an adult person agrees to obey by remaining and accepting the benefits of the state, then she owes her obedience to that state. If she disagrees, then she is obligated to persuade the state that it is in error, but if she fails to do so, she must remain obedient.
Now, let us turn to the matter of Muslim soldiers and Hasan’s case. As noted above, he contends that it is difficult for Muslims in the United States military (and this would presumably also apply to Muslims in any Western military) to morally justify serving when the United States military is engaged in operations against Muslims. He also presents a view that can be easily made into a utilitarian argument: Muslims should be allowed to leave the service so as to avoid harms such as damaged morale and other adverse events (perhaps including such things as violent actions by Muslim soldiers against their fellow soldiers).
While I cannot speak for Socrates with certainty, given his views in the Crito, I suspect that he would present a much better version of the sort of argument I will now hazard.
When Muslim soldiers enter the United States military, they know that they might be required to fight against fellow Muslims. Of course, anyone who enlists knows that they might very well be required to fight against other people who belong to groups they identify with (such as Christians, or men, or women, or Russians, or any number of groups). As such, there seems to be no trickery in play. Also, entering the military is completely voluntary: no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, has to enlist and serve. As such, there is no force.
When people enter the military, the United States spends a considerable amount of resources in training them. Also, the soldiers are given various incentives (such as signing bonuses) and opportunities (such as education). Naturally, the soldiers are also paid and receive other benefits as well.
Since Muslim soldiers have not been deceived or forced into serving and they have accepted the benefits provided by the service, they are then obligated to fulfill their obligations. If they did not wish to risk facing fellow Muslims in battle, then they should have chosen another career path.
It might be objected that this would discriminate against Muslims by not allowing them to enter the service. However, this is not the case. This would no more be discrimination against Muslims than expecting pacifists to either be willing to fight or not join the military in the first place. After all, the military’s function is to fight and service members might be, in theory, called upon to fight people of almost any faith.
Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that a soldier can correctly object to immoral orders or situations and do so within the rules of the military. This right is, of course, held by all soldiers.
Naturally, it could be argued that it is immoral for a Muslim to fight a fellow Muslim (although a shared faith, be it Islam or Christianity rarely if ever seems to be a deterrence against violence in war). However, the same sort of argument could be made by anyone who objects to fighting folks whom they identify with. Of course, I do find this appealing: when we are killing each other over land, power, or whatever, it does seem like we are acting in an immoral manner.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a6122e00-83a3-4717-8621-b85780a1adb3)
I was a Catholic when I served in the submarine force. I would have had no qualms about sending another Catholic to his eternal rest at the the bottom of the ocean if he was in an enemy submarine and we were at war. None. Why would it be any different for any other religion? One of the biggest problems in the Middle East is Muslims killing Muslims. A large part of the reason the we are deployed there is to make them stop!
Jazzak Allah
Naat
“It might be objected that this would discriminate against Muslims by not allowing them to enter the service.” This is not an objection to the argument you have made; you’ve adequately explained how Muslims are equally positioned in their ability to accept or reject the costs and benefits of voluntary service.
A more serious criticism of this post is as follows. You write, “He [Hasan] also presents a view that can be easily made into a utilitarian argument: Muslims should be allowed to leave the service so as to avoid harms such as damaged morale and other adverse events (perhaps including such things as violent actions by Muslim soldiers against their fellow soldiers).” I suspect — given other information I’ve read about his time in DC — that Hasan was thinking less about Muslim soldiers engaging in violence than he was about Muslim soldiers being the victims of violence by their fellow soldiers. Allowing Muslim soldiers to claim conscientious objector status would allow them to escape being targets of bigotry and harassment by Christians, behavior Hasan complained of on numerous occasions.
I agree with Nora
But do I hear an argument that this reluctant muslim soldier might, then, cheerfully fight and possibly kill christians or non-believers?
So I conclude your article as this:
“Their joining the army and then wanting to leave it is not rational, since they knew that they may want to leave at the first place” I’m not going to argue this part (although it can be in several ways.)
then you go further “They are asking for something illogical, so we must not grant them that”
Have it ever occurred to you that this illogical situation “already exists”, while in the case of Socrates no illogicality existed, since he didn’t want to run away. It seems like that you are trying to show that letting them leave the army is illogical, because they are thinking illogically. But you don’t notice that it is not about right or wrong, or what it should have been, it is about finding a solution to a problem made by illogical thinking of some humans.
In this particular situation in fact by letting them stay in service will be ACCEPTING the illogicality.
You should either correct their illogicality and make them understand that they knew this from start and now they should be totally willing to obey (which is quite unlikely, if not impossible)
or try to control them by law, e.g. you may say that should be fined before quitting, or put some tight measures regarding these soldiers and keeping them in army. (which one you choose probably depend on economical considerations.)
but anyway you can’t leave them stay in army like the way they are, cause they will continue to think illogically and it will bring grim consequences.
The Socrates angle is relevant but not in the way that you propose. Socrates was acting from a totalitarian view of the state or it’s my country right or wrong. Hasan had been infected by the same sort of moral virus only in his case it it was the Ummah the pan-global community of Islam that is a single entity and that demands loyalty. Ironically the Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere do not have much compunction about killing other Muslims. A correct moral approach for him would have been to refuse to serve for his stated reasons and accept a court-martial. Is there a fatwa (ruling by authoritative cleric) on this case. Must check.
Here: “We must remember that [Fort Hood] is a camp–this is not war. This is not an act in the middle of a war,” explains Akbar Ahmed, a noted Islam scholar.
“Islam is very clear in the rules of war. Our first Caliph Abu Bakr laid down the rules of war–you cannot kill women, you cannot kill priests, you cannot kill or burn down vegetation.”
So herbicides are haram. That’s interesting.
The U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is immoral and just plain useless. What saddens me is Major Hasan didn’t use his knowledge of psychiatry to fake mental illness and thus, be released from military service. That would have saved 13 lives and would have signified one less U.S. soldier in that futile military adventure. I’ve always felt that Socrates, far from setting an example by drinking the hemlock, was a vain fool, who should have escaped when he had the chance. Heroic gestures serve no real purpose, beyond giving painters one more noble theme to depict.
Major Hasan’s resort to violence was deeply irrational and destructive, and in that sense philosophical arguments for or against his position are irrelevant.
But your assertion that he knew what he was getting into and was therefore obliged to continue is absurd. In his job of interviewing soldiers with post traumatic stress, he learned of countless atrocities perpetrated in the course of war. If you had been immersed in these stories, rather than in Socrates, you might not be so quick to assert that Hasan had no right to change his mind.
An enlisted soldier cannot define the war, or other conflicts, in which he or she is willing to serve in. On enlistment this is made perfectly clear. Therefore, one can only assume that the individuals conscience and morality is totally at one at the time of enlistment. Any other thought(s)would be illogical and or immoral. This does not differ from the Socrates argument. A soldier enlists of his or her own free will, receive(s) the benefits of the country, through the armed services, ie., pay, food and lodging etc.,therefore, that person owes obedience to the armed services that are controlled by the legitimate government in power. A disobedience can only be immoral.
Roland says: “An enlisted soldier cannot define the war, or other conflicts, in which he or she is willing to serve in. On enlistment this is made perfectly clear. Therefore, one can only assume that the individuals conscience and morality is totally at one at the time of enlistment. Any other thought(s)would be illogical and or immoral.”
So once you find out that the war is in fact filled with atrocities, it is still immoral to opt out? That’s the logic not only (so you claim) of Socrates but also of “the good German.” It’s less common among Germans these days than among anglophone neoconservatives.
The Good German syndrome:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Good_German_Syndrome.html
“Ironically the Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere do not have much compunction about killing other Muslims.” I think it’s less about killing Muslims and more about railing against the Western kuffar. It’s the same with many Muslim issues with aspects of the West: it’s not so much the aspect per se that Islamic leaders have a problem with, it’s the fact that it’s Western. Anti-Western and one-sided pro-Islam rhetoric seems inextricably linked with Muslim identity at this point in history.
RolandC and David Kepel: it is one thing to conscientiously “opt out.” It is quite another to murder 13 people after shouting “Allahu Akbar.” Hasan lost all claims to conscientious objection when he became a murderer himself.
“Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that a soldier can correctly object to immoral orders or situations and do so within the rules of the military. This right is, of course, held by all soldiers.”
That isn’t quite right, I don’t think. Soldiers have the right and duty to refuse illegal orders, not immoral ones.
“Soldiers have the right and duty to refuse illegal orders, not immoral ones.”
From the military’s point of view, yes. But that does not answer the larger question. You simply assume that once a human being enters the military, s/he loses her right and duty to refuse immoral action. The Nuremberg Tribunal ruled otherwise.
Then really what is the construct of war moral or immoral?. In the context of philosophy this argument therefore is redundant!
The space for “conscientious objector” I presume exist in moral/ethical framework not in rules
Talking about war and morality as mere “constructs” is a lot easier for laptop warriors than for those who suffer from its real consequences. To say these are not part of philosophy is an arbitrary position at odds with philosophy’s historic aim.
“Soldiers have the right and duty to refuse illegal orders, not immoral ones”.
If this be the case, then soldiers have neither right nor duty to refuse an immoral order such that they must rape all women in a captured town. If I am understanding this correctly, it seems somewhat curious.
Additionally I can think of no state of affairs which could not be regarded from a philosophical viewpoint
Mr Bird is correct. State affairs do not lend themselves to philosophical analysis.
However, How do we look at acts of great cowardice?
@JUSTAPEDN “Go there to make them stop”, shut up. America is the biggest terrorist in the world, and needs to stop invading countries for oil.
King,
We are not terrorists. After all, we generally use open military force to achieve our goals, rather than intentionally targeting non-combatants to create fear. As might be imagined, the ethics of what we do can, of course, be questioned.
The author of this article is one of the most ignorant writers I have ever seen. If you plan to write a paper against a certain religion, make sure you know enough about it before you go on and spread your ignorance (Just like Socrates prosecutors, Plato: Apology)