Religion and Missile Ops

[fly boy]

I must again differ. Though Bruno made it clear that we are to steer clear of this debate, I must reaffirm that ethics and morality are impossible when God is removed from the picture, because there is then no fixed standard. If that point has been proven incorrect, you must show how. You can't simply say that it was.

I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral people, or that if people don't believe in the God of the Bible, they can't do good things. So that is not a fault. It is not a leap to any conclusion, it is simply the inevitable.

To bring it back to the point, the two cannot be separated, whether speaking on the ethics of robbing a bank, or the ethics of turning a key in a silo (not that I would liken nuclear warfare to bank robbing).

This class is not a waste of tax dollars. Do you argue that an in infantry soldier shouldn't get PTSD treatment, because, after all, he went into the infantry full well knowing that in combat, he might kill people, or see people be killed? Do you argue that a sniper should feel no guilt for killing a target? The fact that they have become a missile officer doesn't mean that they won't have doubts.

 

[raimius]

I must again differ. Though Bruno made it clear that we are to steer clear of this debate, I must reaffirm that ethics and morality are impossible when God is removed from the picture, because there is then no fixed standard. If that point has been proven incorrect, you must show how. You can't simply say that it was.

To bring it back to the point, the two cannot be separated, whether speaking on the ethics of robbing a bank, or the ethics of turning a key in a silo (not that I would liken nuclear warfare to bank robbing).

Pretty simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
(It's not without it's inherent flaws, of course.)

 

[sprog]

I was not meaning to offend the missile ops people.


My intention was why not the pilot, the intel, the ALO? They are all just at the same constant readiness and willingness as the missileer. Would you not agree? Yet, none of them were forced into a religious education course regarding this issue and their impact of their decision.

They actually to date have "kills" on their souls, and the AF didn't make them attend a class to drop a GBU. That's the true difference IMPO. I am not insinuating anything more than plain facts...many have had a hand in death by their own actions over the past 20 yrs. If they are going to give a course like this, than it should be all not to some. I think the AF recognizes that and this is the reason for shutting down this class.

As far as PRP, I will let Bullet, Flieger , CC and others discuss it. However, as a spouse, I never remember Bullet mandated "talking" to docs, after any military action, but than again that would be classified and he would have to kill me if he told me. In my 20+ yrs I thought PRP meant they could not self prescribed meds...i.e. Afrin, Cough Meds, anything that was more than an aspirin was a no-no. You see I am still learning!

Again, it was not my intention to insult missileers, it was my intention to show that there is an imbalance. Why teach this course to just one career field? If the AF thought that it was a big issue from a moral perspective every career field would get it. They would teach it at the AFA, AFROTC OCS, and Basic. They would teach it for Intel, ABM, UVA, UPT, CSO, etc. They don't and that is why IMPO the course loses any validity regarding training.

The class probably started because some Colonel, who was the head of the missile schoolhouse, thought it was a good idea 25 years ago. I'm sure it helped him get promoted to BG. Tech school training develops independent of what other career fields are doing, so my bet is that the larger Air Force had no idea it was going on (and probably didn't care). Inertia carries it along, so it continues. Enough people complain, and the staff at Vandenberg take a look at it. They made the right call in ending it, if indeed there were the religious overtones as suggested.

I agree with you, the course isn't necessary, and the USAF obviously feels the same way. The ethics behind the lethal nature of military service are covered in commissioning programs and Basic, and religion is left out of it.

The ban on self-medication is part of PRP, but it also requires, at the very least, an interview with your commander before you can be certified. The training that we are discussing was also mandatory before you could do a key-turn in the trainer. "Was" being the key word.

 

[fly boy]

Pretty simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
(It's not without it's inherent flaws, of course.)

I see where you are coming from, but it isn't as simple as it may seem. The word "good" implies in itself a standard of ethics. It allows one to do evil if it will produce a greater good for a greater number of people.

 

[Luigi59]

I must reaffirm that ethics and morality are impossible when God is removed from the picture, because there is then no fixed standard.

You can reaffirm it all you want, that doesn't make it true,

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally “obligatory”, “permissible” or “forbidden.”

1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______.

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospital’s waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person’s organs, he will die but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person’s organs is _______.
​

If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1500 subjects around the world who responded to these dilemmas on our web-based moral sense test [http://moral.wjh.edu]. On the view that morality is God’s word, atheists should judge these cases differently from people with religious background and beliefs, and when asked to justify their responses, should bring forward different explanations.

For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they should go with pure self-interest, and walk by the drowning baby. Results show something completely different. There were no statistically significant differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90% of subjects saying that it is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97% saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97% saying that is forbidden to remove the healthy man’s organs. .

When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that can not account for the differences in play. Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf

 

[fly boy]

I never said that atheists don't have a moral compass.

Anyhow, I would agree that if found in the train situation, you should flip the switch. Anybody would say that.

But my question to everybody is: "Why?" Why should you flip the switch? Why are you "morally obligated" to do so? If we are simply an evolved species, why should we do good? What is good? Who says?

 

[Pima]

But my question to everybody is: "Why?" Why should you flip the switch? Why are you "morally obligated" to do so?

Answer:
I, [FLYBOY], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Notice there is no "morally obligated", however, there is an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you take that Oath.

You flip the switch because you put the country first before God! End of subject, period, dot. You don't ask your CC if it is moral, or their religious beliefs. You count down to the key turn. Order was given, one that you swore to faithfully discharge.

If you question putting country before God, than you need to look inside your own morals, and ask can you put the USA first.

For some they can't, and God Bless Them, there is nothing wrong with that choice. For others they accept thar they may be forced to choose, and their choice is country, believing in God's forgiveness.

If this is a moral dilemma take the time and ponder if you can do the mission knowing that there is always a chance of collateral damage. in other words, innocent lives lost.

 

[Luigi59]

I never said that atheists don't have a moral compass.

Ummm....you said morals and ethics are "impossible when God is removed from the picture."

An atheist has removed "God from the picture." Agreed?

Where does his moral compass come from?

What guides it, since obviously it is not "god" (he is an atheist) and you concur that he has a moral compass.

If that point has been proven incorrect, you must show how.

I just did. Or more accurately, you just did.

 

[Christcorp]

no one ever said that atheists lack a "Moral Compass". I think you're taking the subject too personal and are trying to argue your point with emotions.

Having lived/worked/visited 16 countries, I've seen these morality type arguments numerous times. The problem is: People use their "morals" or "Values" as a guide to judge others. Many in this country would see cutting off a person's hand for stealing as wrong and immoral. Yet, it's done in other countries, and it's seen as perfectly moral. Same with how women are treated, sex, laws, good/bad, etc... These are all "Moral" issues, but you can't say someone is moral or they aren't. All that means is that they fit into the "Social Norm" or they don't.

And this is my last comment on this, because obviously there are some that refuse to believe or understand where their morals come from. They want to believe that they were developed totally independent of society. That religion had nothing to do with it. Well, they're wrong.

I understand all arguments here. Fly-boy; it is definitely possible to have morals without God involved. However, the root basis for the evolution of those morals, is almost entirely based on religion. That's because morals are nothing more than "Social Norms", and social norms are based on a society's beliefs, which include religion. So while you can have morals without god in the equation, the origination of those morals did not happen without religious beliefs. And in the United States, the predominant source of belief that affects the social norms (Morals), is christianity.

Anyway, that's the last I have to say on this. Some understand; some don't; some don't want to. No sense of continuing on. Like many other topics I have bailed out of; there are always more topics. later... mike...

 

[Luigi59]

no one ever said that atheists lack a "Moral Compass".

I think you may need to go back and read some of the things flyboy has posted, he did indeed say that "you must have god in the picture or you cannot be moral."

Atheists do not have god in the picture, therefore he is saying they cannot have a moral compass.

I think you're taking the subject too personal and are trying to argue your point with emotions.

Not being an atheist, I would say you are 100% wrong.

By the way - about 4 or 5 others have posted the exact same things that I have said, and I don't see any atheistic emotion from them either.

But I would venture to say the same thing about you (and flyboy) - you are taking the subject too personally and are trying to argue the subject with emotions. No one is attacking your beliefs, so you shouldn't feel you have to respond with a defense of your beliefs.

What really is being discussed and "argued" is:

Does an official USAF training course on the ethics and morality of mass killing need to be based and justified using the Christian bible to be effective?

The answer of course, is no.​

And this is my last comment on this, because obviously there are some that refuse to believe or understand where their morals come from. They want to believe that they were developed totally independent of society. That religion had nothing to do with it. Well, they're wrong.

This will be my last comment on this as well, as there are obvious some here that refuse to believe that morals can exist outside of religion, and they can develop totally independent of any religion whatsoever, and people can live moral and ethical lives without any religion at all.

Finis.

 

[fly boy]

Answer:
I, [FLYBOY], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Notice there is no "morally obligated", however, there is an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you take that Oath.

You flip the switch because you put the country first before God! End of subject, period, dot. You don't ask your CC if it is moral, or their religious beliefs. You count down to the key turn. Order was given, one that you swore to faithfully discharge.

If you question putting country before God, than you need to look inside your own morals, and ask can you put the USA first.

For some they can't, and God Bless Them, there is nothing wrong with that choice. For others they accept thar they may be forced to choose, and their choice is country, believing in God's forgiveness.

If this is a moral dilemma take the time and ponder if you can do the mission knowing that there is always a chance of collateral damage. in other words, innocent lives lost.

You misunderstand. I was referring to flipping the switch on the trolley incident proposed by Luigi. In that instance, there is no order to flip the switch. There is no dilemma as to whether you should obey the orders.

It is a question of flipping the switch to save the trolley, and thus, the people on it.

 

[fly boy]

Ummm....you said morals and ethics are "impossible when God is removed from the picture."

An atheist has removed "God from the picture." Agreed?

Where does his moral compass come from?

What guides it, since obviously it is not "god" (he is an atheist) and you concur that he has a moral compass.



I just did. Or more accurately, you just did.

Unfortunately, I did not prove myself wrong. The atheist believes he has removed God from the picture, but he really hasn't. We'll agree that atheists (for the most part) have a moral compass. The question lies in where he got it. What is his standard for morality? What draws the line? Why are people obliged to do "good" (whatever that means)?

 

[fly boy]

I think you may need to go back and read some of the things flyboy has posted, he did indeed say that "you must have god in the picture or you cannot be moral."

Atheists do not have god in the picture, therefore he is saying they cannot have a moral compass.

That is a drastic misquote. I never said you must have God in the picture, or you can't be moral. I say that by being moral, you acknowledge a standard of morality, yet on the outside, you deny that standard. I have never said that an atheist cannot be moral.

 

[bruno]

And with that- this is closed. We are not Discussing the existence of God or the existence of ethics outside of God on this thread or any other.

Flyboy- apparently you didn't get this from my earlier post- understand this now. While you are perfectly free to believe absolutely that God is the center of all of your decisions, you are not free as a soldier to chastise those who feel otherwise- NOR are you free as a military officer to Proselytize to others in the course of your duties. Neither are those who would argue the absence of God. Obn this forum- the thread was discussing whether or not a military course can mention religious beliefs while discussing the consideration of ethics. While I happen to believe that it can do so- I also happen to believe that it is a fine line. What is crossing the line for the military and the line on this thread is attempting to debate the basis of the belief itself FROM EITHER SIDE.
I kind of thought that this was clear but apparently not. the gate is closed here.