Unethical Behavior in the US Armed Forces

I Research

Why do some U.S. military personnel take part in unethical behavior when they hail from a Christian nation that imposes strict taboos on such behavior? Why did American troops take part in what became known as the Massacre of My Lai, which occurred on March 16, 1968 in the region of Quang Ngai province, during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War? What was the reason that army personnel humiliated and tortured prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq in 2003? While many people believe that being raised in a Christian nation will inoculate American military personnel from taking part in unethical behavior there are many factors that will cause Americans in the armed forces to rationalize immoral behavior.

The overwhelming majority of people in the United States consider themselves Christian. Prior to 1990, the percentage of Christians in the United States was at 87 percent. In 2008, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Christian had fell to 76 percent (Robinson, 2004). 76 percent of Americans claim that they follow the Christian bible and adhere to Christian standard. For example, the “Golden Rule”, which reads, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12) Why is this principle so readily ignored by some American military personnel?

Soldiers form a deep loyalty for each other, through shared sacrifice and hardship, a member in the United States military knows that he/she can count on the soldier next to him/her in life threatening situations. However, if loyalty is misguided it can lead to murder. On March 16, 1968 the men of Charlie Company, 11^th Brigade, Americal Division, led by Lt. William L. “Rusty” Calley marched into the hamlet of My Lai in Quang Ngai province and killed 450-500 men, woman and children (Hersh, 1970). The people that were killed were not combat troops. In fact, the soldiers under Lt. Calley did not receive any enemy gunfire before or during the massacre. United States Army personnel, like rifleman Paul D. Meadlo, a soldier who was giving children candy the day before the massacre, gathered up everyone in the village, old men and young girls alike, woman with infants in their arms and ordered them into one of three large ditches and methodically shot them to death (Zinn, 2001). On two previous missions, Charlie Company was hit from behind and lost personnel due to booby traps. On one mission Charlie Company lost 15 men, and on the next mission Charlie Company lost 28 men without seeing any Viet Cong. The men of Charlie Company were angry and frustrated at the invisible enemy (Hersh, 1970). The United States soldiers in Vietnam must have been confused and disorientated, due to the guerrilla tactics used in the war, unable to tell friend from foe (Bilton, 1993). Anyone who ran away once the killings began, were gunned down because they were suspected Viet Cong. Anyone who stayed was considered to be a possible enemy and killed. Lt. William L. Calley was charged and convicted of 109 counts of murder of civilian Vietnamese people. Lt. William Calley served three years of house arrest at Fort Benning for his crimes (Bilton, 1993). Ted Nelson wrote “A Battle Hymn of Lt. Calley” in his honor.

            Many people will obey authority or an authority figure even if one thinks that the authority figure is wrong. As was observed in the Milgram experiment, participants were willing to administer an electric shock to another person if the other person gave a wrong answer to a question. In Milgram’s experiment, the more questions that the actor answered incorrectly, the higher the voltage was administered. The actor, who was in another room, would make sounds of discomfort and eventually pain. If the subject began to question if they should continue, the authority figure would encourage the subject to continue on. Amazingly, 26 of the 40  subjects gave the highest, voltage of electrical shock to the actor, even though the switch had signs on them that said “danger: severe shock (Milgrim, 1963). Spec. 4 Max Hudson of the 2^nd Platoon testified that the night before the massacre at My Lai, orders had come down from Captain “Mad Dog” Medina. “He (Capt. Medina) stated that My Lai was suspected a VC stronghold. With this he ordered to kill everyone in that village” (Hersh, 1970). Obedience to authority is a very strong mechanism of persuasion especially if the authority figure, or origination, is perceived to be of a respectful source or if the person feels that they can pass on the responsibility to someone else (Milgram, 1963).

Some may argue that the American soldiers now, in our current time, are too evolved to take part in barbaric behavior as torture, humiliation, or prisoner abuse. Sadly one only has to point to the acts of United States military personnel in 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  Photos emerged of United States military personnel posing for photos while torturing and humiliating their prisoners. Lynndie England was famously photographed humiliating Iraqi prisoners while giving the thumbs-up gesture that made her infamous. According to Bageant, the low education standards in rural America, where some of the military personnel who were working at Abu Ghraib were from, was a contributing factor for the dishonorable acts that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison. Bageant suggest that if one had a better education they would be less likely to commit such acts of unethical behavior. Bageant continues on to suggest that the non-stop violence in American culture (e.g. TV, media, movies, videogames), has had a direct effect on the minds of American children, and can be a contributing factor for the lack of moral integrity demonstrated by some of the American military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison. “From the time I could walk I played games in which I pretended to kill Japanese, Indians, Germans, Koreans, Zulus….with plastic army men we tortured with flame, firecracker…We went to bed dreaming of the screams of the evil brutes we smitten that day… enemies of democracy and our way of life” (Bageant, 2007).

To choose conformity over common sense is a sad fact of human behavior. “Group pressure to conform despite individual misgivings” is the definition of “groupthink” (Brym & Lie 2007). In the Asch experiment, actors purposefully chose the wrong answer when asked which lines that were drawn on two different cards matched in length. The subject would 75 percent of the time give the same answer of the group even when they knew that the answer they were giving was incorrect. The Asch experiment famously demonstrated how group pressure can make someone choose the wrong answer or do something against one’s convictions just to be part of the group and not be “the odd man out” (Asch, 1955). Giving in to group pressure, or conforming to “majority rules”, can be the cause of acts as small as teasing a classmate that can lead to bullying or to large acts of unethical behavior. Lynndie England had a strong sense of wanting to belong, and was very eager to please. These traits that Lynndie England demonstrated prevented her from trying to stop the “bad things” that she said were going on at Abu Ghraib (Bageant, 2007).

The Jenness experiment again demonstrates how the desire to conform to the majority can be very powerful. In the Jenness experiment, Jenness put a glass bottle of beans on a table and asked participants to guess how many beans were in the bottle. Jenness interviewed participants individually and then again after the subjects talked with the group. The result was that the majority of the participants wanted to change their answers after consulting with the group (Jenness, 1932).

            It is easier to commit inhumane acts to fellow humans if you dehumanize them.

If one thinks that one is hurting a fellow human who has a family, or the person is someone’s mother, wife, or father one will be less willing to treat the person with humiliation, torture or inhumanely. But if the perceived enemy is dehumanized, viewed as less than human, and not deserving to be treated justly, fairly, or with respect, then it is easier for one to hunt and  kill the enemy or extract information by means of an enhanced interrogation processes (Maiese, 2003). If one attaches a disparaging label (e.g. “Slant-eyed”, “Gook”, “Towel-head”) to the perceived enemy then that label will further dehumanize them and make them susceptible to acts of cruelty. International law demands that all humans be treated with respect and dignity. The idea of meeting the basic needs of others is lost to a perceived enemy that has been dehumanized. Dehumanization can lead to intense hatred that can eventually lead to killing or genocide (Maiese, 2003).

The majority of American military personnel conduct themselves in an honorable fashion; however, it is the dishonorable acts that the media exploits for both good and bad reasons. The world has heard of the horrific acts committed at the village of My Lai and at Abu Ghraib prison-this fact hurts America’s reputation and casts an air of distrust on the American military. “The U.S. intervention in Iraq is troubled, to say the least, and now our own forces have handed our enemies a propaganda coup that trumps their best efforts” (Bowden, 2004). By learning about how and why these actions took place, Americans can learn how to avoid them in the future. 

           

II Personal

I have long wondered about why the massacre at My Lai happened. Last year, I worked at the airport. A handful of my coworkers were Vietnam veterans and I would, in a respectful manner, ask them about My Lai. The answers I always received were either “I don’t want to talk about it” or “I would just like to forget about that whole incident”. When I learned about Abu Ghraib, I was still active duty and hearing what happened at that prison made me angry. I thought, “No way, this is my generation and we don’t do those kinds of things. How the heck was that allowed to happen?” In class and by doing research for this paper I feel I have finally gotten the answers I have been long looking for.       

            Dehumanization of the enemy is a huge reason why unethical behavior is occasionally tolerated in the military; however, the reason it is taught, as far as I know from my military experience, is because when a soldier is given an order, that soldier is expected to follow it, period no questions asked. If the one giving the orders is acting out of rage or fear, and the soldier receiving the order is already viewing the enemy as not worthy of respect, then once the principles of groupthink are added we have a recipe for disaster.

 I joined the Marines after September 11, because I wanted to do something to help my country and to protect those who can not protect themselves. I wanted to do something that might help prevent something like the terror attacks of September 11^th from happening again. I would hear people saying, “We should just drop the bomb over there and turn the whole place into a sheet of glass”. I didn’t understand why people would say something so mean and heartless…now I realize that they were just scared, angry, and participating in groupthink.   

References

Asche, S. E. (1955) Opinions and social pressures. Scientific American (Vol 193 p.31-35) San Francisco, CA.: W.H. Freeman and Company

Bageant, J. (2007). Deer hunting with Jesus: dispatches from America’s class war. (1^st ed., p. 288). New York, NY: Crown.

Bilton, M. (1993). Four hours in my lai. (p. 448). Westminster, London: Penguin

Bowden, M (2004)  Lessons of Abu Graib. The Atlantic Monthly (Vol 293 p.33-36). Washington D.C.

Hersh, S. (1970). my lai 4: A report on the massacre and its aftermath. (1^st ed., p. 305). New York, NY : Random House Inc

Jenness, A (1932) The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding a matter of fact. The journal of abnormal and social psychology (Vol 27 p 279-296)

Maiese , M. (2003, July). Dehumanization. Retrieved from  http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/

McKinley, T. (2009, May 19). A soldier’s tale: lynndie england. Marie Claire, Retrieved from http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/lynndie-england-1

Milgram, S (1963 Oct.) Behavioral study of obedience. the journal of abnormal and social psychology. (Vol 67 p.371-378)

Robinson, B. (2004, Nov 14). Religious identification in the u.s. Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org

Zinn, H (2001). A people’s history of the united states: 1492 to presen. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Does God Exist?

Wayne T. Mulei                                      

4 December, 2011

Does God exist?

Since the beginning of time man has looked up at the heavens and asked the question, “Is there a God? Who made this planet? Where did it all come from? Who made the original humans? Did the universe come about in a huge big bang? Or did it come about by a Divine Mover?” Everyone seems to have an opinion about the existence of God, be they a pastor at a church or your average Joe walking down the street. If one listens carefully, one will be able to pick out one of five different arguments for the existence of God. If the person arguing for the existence of God is skilled at debate, they will interweave their arguments. However, once one is able to identify the different arguments for the existence of God, through critical thinking, one will quickly come to the conclusion by using reason and logic that there is no substantial proof for the existence of a God.

            The ontological argument, by far the most common argument, is the first argument that most people will put forth. However, even though the ontological argument is the most popular it is the most ridiculous. The ontological argument says that God’s existence is imposed by the definition or concept of God (Oppy), or more plainly, that God exists because we as humans give characteristics to God. It is because of these characteristics that God exists. For example, God is powerful, all knowing and omnipotent so therefore He exists. One of the main problems with this argument is the argument is based on unsubstantiated information; it is not really an argument because the ontological argument is basing truth on nothing. Another problem with the ontological argument is the argument uses testimony or an “open declaration or profession of evidence in support of a fact” (Oppy); however, that fact is nothing more than personal belief. Some people will hold a book and point to it and say, God exists because this book says that He exists, and it is because the book says that God exists therefore He exists (Anselm). Here it is very easy to recognize the circularity of the ontological argument. What usually follows the ontological argument is a statement of damnation or if anyone does not believe the way I believe then they are a fool. Amy Kimoto in her essay, “Should I Believe in God”, points out that when arguing against the existence of God, one will be received with “utter closed-mindedness” (Kimoto).

            The cosmological argument is another common argument that comes up when discussing the existence of God. The cosmological argument differs from the ontological in that instead of hearsay or unsubstantiated information, the cosmological argument looks for proof for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God by affirming that the universe and its parts can be neither accidental nor self-caused and must ultimately have been brought into existence by God (Reichenbach). Or, the universe exists, and it must have been created by someone. That someone is God or a “Prime Mover” (Reichenbach). Those that believe in the cosmological argument will argue that because people exist and nature exists, God must also exist. The refutation of this argument comes in the form of infinite regression. When arguing against the cosmological argument, one only needs to ask, “Who created God?” The answer will either be in the form of the ontological argument. For example God “just is,” however, one can counter “if God ‘just is’ why cannot the universe ‘just be’.” Or one will receive the answer that God’s father created God. Then when asked, “Who created God’s father?” the answer may be, “Grandfather God.”  This is an example of infinite regression. Infinite regression is illogical because something cannot come from nothing.

            The third argument is the most compelling, for it attempts to answer the question of purpose. The teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that the universe and its parts give evidence of purpose and/or design and therefore require a “Divine designer” (Ratzsch). The teleological argument attempts to answer the question of what and who gave plants and trees and ecosystems a purpose. When one looks at nature it is easy to see that everything is interconnected, everything exists for a purpose (Ratzsch).  Someone who is making a teleological argument may assert “If birds, dogs, and humans have a purpose, and everything in the world has a purpose,” then there must be a Divine designer to initiate purpose. This is a great argument and hard to refute; however, using critical thinking to assess the teleological argument, the flaw in this argument becomes clear. One may try to figure out what is the purpose for plants, animals, and humans, and may come up with a number of different ideas or solutions. For example, some may say, plants and trees exist for the purpose of producing food and oxygen that life is dependant on for survival. Animals might exist, for nutrition, clothing, tools, and a means of transportation for humans. The meaning of life and purpose for humans has been debated since the dawn of man, and a score of philosophers have come up with a number of solutions. However, a very large leap is being made from the beginning part of the argument of purpose of existence to, “there must be a Divine designer.” The teleological argument consists of a conditional statement. Or more plainly, the “if” and “then” part of the statement must be true, or the statement does not work; if everything has a purpose, then there must be a Divine designer (Ratzch). The teleological argument suggests that something tangible be can created by something intangible, and that is absolutely absurd.       

            The moral argument is the fourth argument that is common when trying to prove the existence of God.  The moral argument maintains that morality must come from and be guaranteed by a “Supreme being” or God (Byrne). Some people may state that there is “goodness” in the world and people can be good. God is good, God is perfect; therefore, God exists. The moral argument is vey similar to the ontological, in which humans give a human characteristic to God, in the case of the moral argument the human characteristic is “goodness”. The moral argument, like the ontological argument uses testimony and unsubstantiated information, therefore attempts to base truth on nothing. 

            The last argument for the existence of God is usually made when the one who is attempting to prove God’s existence has run out of ideas. Balise Pascal, a 16^th century philosopher, argued that belief in the existence of God is simply the “best bet”. “A rational person should wager as though God exists. Because living accordingly [living with the belief that God exists] one has everything to gain and nothing to lose” (Hajek).  This became known as Pascal’s Wager. However, a ratiocinative person will quickly dismiss Pascal’s Wager due to the unsophisticated approach Pascal takes towards faith and belief. Believing that something exists just because belief serves ones self interest does not mean that that thing exists (Hajek).

 By understanding and by being able to identify the different arguments for and against the existence of God, one will not be easily swayed or deceived by someone who is merely a good orator. One will be able to look objectively at all the different arguments and be able to make an educated decision through critical thinking. Nevertheless, one will quickly realize that there is no substantial proof for the existence of God. God’s existence has to be taken purely on faith. However, one cannot argue against faith with reason and logic, because what is faith if not belief absent of proof, or believing in something with no proof of existence. Foolish people will say that faith is a beautiful thing; however, putting faith in a fictitious and angry God has been the cause of countless wars and death.

When reading this one may come to the conclusion that I do not believe that God exist. That is not the point I was attempting to make. The point that I want to make is that through education one will not be deceived by a good speaker who is trying to make one of these arguments. 

  

Works Cited

Adams, W. Royce., ed. Viewpoints. New York: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.

Byrne, Peter, "Moral Arguments for the Existence of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Hajek, Alan, "Pascal's Wager", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Kimoto, Amy. “Should I Believe in God?” Adams 268-269.

Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Ratzsch, Del, "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)