Veterans: altruists or not?
ta
enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
John Stafford
<3aa031a6-ea70-4571...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
ta <padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Factoid: soldiers in combat die for their brothers, not their country.
--
Kill your TV
ta
> In article
> <3aa031a6-ea70-4571-bbb0-b9efb3924...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So should we be congratulating our nation's veterans for making
> > enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
> > another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
>
> Factoid: soldiers in combat die for their brothers, not their country.
>
> --
> Kill your TV
Why do people join the armed forces?
John Stafford
<a51d2e7f-439a-4224...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
ta <padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do people join the armed forces?
Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
If all I wanted was to serve my country (the USA), and if I could, then
I would have chosen civil service, but it was not available.
The main reason was economic: We came from urban areas and jobs were
scarce in our area. We wanted to be off the streets. None were ready for
college for various reasons, including affordability; our parents (if we
had them) were typically financially conservative or poor. Most family
associates had no knowledge of college and were not confident in their
ability to achieve.
A hope for an environment with a more leveled field from which we could
emerge with veterans benefits, a new start and a positive background.
Unjustified optimism.
And to choose our branch of service. Remember, the draft was in force.
Or parents and older relatives talked of it often enough that we
believed it was immanent.
Did any of our expectations come about? For some of us military service
was a lesson in living without rights, brutal, deadly, and a powerful
builder of camaraderie for better or worse. After separation we found
profound discrimination from peers and potential employers, a GI bill
wrecked by Nixon, civil unrest, and racism was still rampant. And of
course, some died and many were handicapped for life.
Positives? I learned that if nobody is shooting at you, then life is
pretty good.
Giga
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:nhoj-52B747.1...@news.supernews.com...
: )
ta
> In article
Man, I don't blame you at all for doing what you did. What a tough
road. Respect!
In the end, it sounds like it was more about self-preservation than
any kind of altruism, which I'm sure is the case for most people. When
you're broke, the rich have got you by the cohones.
But even for those who claim to join for love of country, isn't that
still the pursuit of one's own perceived self-interest? In this case,
there is an identification of "self" with "country" (or "God" or
"tribe" or "political party" or "religion" etc. etc.), and so the
action is still self-interested, yes?
John Stafford
<35f19ee8-96b7-40df...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
ta <padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 1:33�pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a51d2e7f-439a-4224-82c6-7e5512d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Why do people join the armed forces?
> >
> > Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
> > offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
> [...]
> > Positives? I learned that if nobody is shooting at you, then life is
> > pretty good.
>
> Man, I don't blame you at all for doing what you did. What a tough
> road. Respect!
>
> In the end, it sounds like it was more about self-preservation than
> any kind of altruism, which I'm sure is the case for most people. When
> you're broke, the rich have got you by the cohones.
Mine was an entirely selfish motive.
> But even for those who claim to join for love of country, isn't that
> still the pursuit of one's own perceived self-interest? In this case,
> there is an identification of "self" with "country" (or "God" or
> "tribe" or "political party" or "religion" etc. etc.), and so the
> action is still self-interested, yes?
I know people who have recently served who truly feel they did it for
their country, but express such within a community of support - the
community in which they live now. The later fosters the individual's
feeling of pride. Maybe they get a free beer now and then. I won't
argue with what works for them or second-guess their motive.
I know of only one person who claimed he joined to kill and, as he often
said, "blow shit up".
tg
But what *would* count as altruism? I don't think there's any such
thing, but you seem to have something in mind.
-tg
ta
> In article
>
>
>
> ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <a51d2e7f-439a-4224-82c6-7e5512d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Why do people join the armed forces?
>
> > > Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
> > > offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
> > [...]
> > > Positives? I learned that if nobody is shooting at you, then life is
> > > pretty good.
>
> > Man, I don't blame you at all for doing what you did. What a tough
> > road. Respect!
>
> > In the end, it sounds like it was more about self-preservation than
> > any kind of altruism, which I'm sure is the case for most people. When
> > you're broke, the rich have got you by the cohones.
>
> Mine was an entirely selfish motive.
Well, it wasn't selfish . . . it was self-interested (big difference
imo).
> > But even for those who claim to join for love of country, isn't that
> > still the pursuit of one's own perceived self-interest? In this case,
> > there is an identification of "self" with "country" (or "God" or
> > "tribe" or "political party" or "religion" etc. etc.), and so the
> > action is still self-interested, yes?
>
> I know people who have recently served who truly feel they did it for
> their country, but express such within a community of support - the
> community in which they live now. The later fosters the individual's
> feeling of pride. Maybe they get a free beer now and then. I won't
> argue with what works for them or second-guess their motive.
I don't doubt that they feel that way, and I don't question the
motive. I'm only pointing out that those individuals identify so
strongly with the idea of "country", that "love of country" becomes
synonymous with "love of self". Identification is psychological
process -- I = country -- and it's a process that has obvious
evolutionary value.
If I love grizzly bears so much I'm willing to sacrifice my life for
their survival, then I have psychologically identified so strongly
with grizzly bears that it becomes a matter of self-interest. Not
taking action would result in greater pain than risking my life to
protect them.
And so these are all matters of self-preservation, with the concept of
"self" emerging to mean different things in each case.
ta
I'd throw out the word "altruism"; Mother Theresa was acting in her
own self-interest (though she was not acting "selfishly", because her
pursuit of self-interest was not at the expense of others).
Selfish behaviour is the naked pursuit of one's own perceived self-
interest *without regard to others' interests* (i.e., the narcissistic
behaviour discussed in other threads).
Joining the armed forces is not selfish, for example (unless of course
you're joining the armed forces to escape from some obligation or
responsibility at home). Neither is buying xmas gifts for your
children (unless of course you're buying them gifts that are really
designed for your use and/or benefit). Though both acts are in pursuit
of one's interests (you love your country, and you love your kids).
Marcus Aurelius
which, with a little imagination is pertinent to and responsive to
the original post:
• "To be, or not to be, — that is the question: —
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? — To die, to sleep, —
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; —
To sleep, perchance to dream: — ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would these fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death, —
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, — puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know naught of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
• Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! — Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
o Hamlet, scene i"
End ofQuote
Kevin B. Murphy
On 11-Nov-2009, ta <padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.anarchism:339553
> alt.philosophy:727618
I wished I'd stayed in the military... There is nothing to be tolerant of in
the military. Why is it necessary for people not in the military to be
'tolerant'.
--
Denial of Free Will makes the Knowledge of Order Absolute.
tg
I had to think about this for a while. As you know, I'm not fond of
language that has value connotations, but you are being pretty careful
about how you use "selfish", so I will let it slide ;-).
But here's the question: Does following a communitarian ethos for a
limited community qualify as 'unselfish'? Why is it 'unselfish' for
me to kill gooks but not my neighbor? IOW, is your construction binary
or a matter of degree?
-tg
ZerkonXXXX
Or another group of individuals acting as individuals but seen as a group
from outside the group.
ZerkonXXXX
> I wished I'd stayed in the military...There is nothing to be tolerant
> of in the military.
[Pretend I am really..]
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ZerkonXXXX
> After separation we found profound
deep and utter Boredom, frivolity, superficiality, clueless-ness, drab
people speaking drably .... and yet all is better than even one asshole
E-6.
> Positives?
The 'those people over there' were as human as the 'we' here.
John Stafford
ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:33:00 -0600, John Stafford wrote:
>
> > After separation we found profound
>
> deep and utter Boredom, frivolity, superficiality, clueless-ness, drab
> people speaking drably .... and yet all is better than even one asshole
> E-6.
When I was close to separating and going back to the states, a senior
sergeant said to me, "I'll bet that when I die you will piss on my
grave." I responded, "Nope. You know how I hate to stand in line."
> > Positives?
>
> The 'those people over there' were as human as the 'we' here.
True, but also generally more enlightened.
ta
I was very deliberate in my avoidance of the term "unselfish" so as
not to insinuate a binary relationship. IOW, not being selfish is not
equal to "unselfish".
Language is limiting.
p.s. if you have a better word than "selfish", I'm all ears. :-)
ta
They may be acting as individuals, but I think they genuinely feel
they are part of a larger group, in most cases. When you identify with
something, then that something becomes larger than just the sum of
it's parts. Your family is not just you, your wife, and kids, it's a
unit unto itself (psychologically, which is all that matters).
tg
Yup. But that's why we have philosophy eh.
I think you need to clarify how this works. You originally posed the
question for joining the military, and the whole point of being in the
military, as they say, is not to die for your country, but to make the
other poor s.o.b. die for *his* country.
So, is that selfish or not? Or, 'how selfish' is it, or however you
want to characterize it?
> p.s. if you have a better word than "selfish", I'm all ears. :-)
Libertarian?
-tg
ta
My question was around the motivation for joining. As seen from the
responses, there are numerous possibilities, including economic and
emotional/psychological. It's the latter case (i.e. patriotism) than
I'm primarily concerned with, since the economic one is clearly not
altruistic (but neither is it selfish, for reasons I've explained).
Patriotic motivation is also not selfish, though it is self-
interested, as is joining for economic reasons. Neither is selfish;
both are self-interested (again, subject to exceptions, of which I
have given a couple of examples).
Now are you asking me if it's selfish to kill another human being in
defense of one's country (however misguided you may be in that
belief)? If so, my answer is No, assuming your patriotism is genuine
(again, even if misguided). The reason is because the soldier has
placed the interests of the group (country) ahead of his own (even if
only in his own mind), given that he's willing to risk his life, which
is the ultimate sacrifice one can make.
So the action of killing an enemy soldier is not selfish, and neither
is it self-less.
> > p.s. if you have a better word than "selfish", I'm all ears. :-)
>
> Libertarian?
(laugh)
> -tg
tg
I understand that part of your reasoning---no problem. But then if you
and I form a partnership, we can argue that any action we take is 'not
selfish', since we would each be acting in the interest of our minimal
'group'. Does that fit with your communitarian approach?
-tg
Fred Weiss
I for one hope very much they are acting in their own self-interest.
Why wouldn't defending this country be in one's interest?
Fred Weiss
Michael Price
Wait, you're giving him respect for joining the military for
economic reasons?
Why? If you don't believe in whatever mission the military is engaged
in then
joining them means killing or helping other people kill, for money.
If you believe
that the military is doing something worthwhile then joining is saying
you're
ready to kill or help others kill for that purpose, but this guy
specifically says he
joined for the money/economic benefits.
Michael Price
complete
negligence of nursing standards and caused the deaths of others by
blocking their transfer to a hospital where they could be saved.
> Selfish behaviour is the naked pursuit of one's own perceived self-
> interest *without regard to others' interests* (i.e., the narcissistic
> behaviour discussed in other threads).
>
Well I don't know if I'd agree with that definition but let's say
it's true.
> Joining the armed forces is not selfish, for example (unless of course
> you're joining the armed forces to escape from some obligation or
> responsibility at home).
The people that the armed forces kill don't want to die, therefore
joining
is done without regard to their interests. Therefore it is "selfish"
by your
definition if done for economic benefits.
> Neither is buying xmas gifts for your
> children (unless of course you're buying them gifts that are really
> designed for your use and/or benefit). Though both acts are in pursuit
> of one's interests (you love your country, and you love your kids).
You're assuming "your country" will be helped by having you join the
armed forces, for which there is zero evidence. Modern armies act
against
the interests of the majority of their citizens.
Michael Price
The military hasn't defended my country in my lifetime. Generally
speaking modern militaries endanger their country.
ta
Ah, I see what you're asking now. Good point.
So I suppose I would have to alter my position because yes, that could
very well be selfish if we pursued our narrow interests at the expense
of other groups.
For example, if the patriotic American soldier decides that pursuing
his nation's interests without considering (or considering and
rejecting) the interests of competing nations, then that would be a
selfish act.
Michael Price
selfish.
If they are indulged in without regard for the welfare are others they
are selfish by your definition.
> Now are you asking me if it's selfish to kill another human being in
> defense of one's country (however misguided you may be in that
> belief)? If so, my answer is No, assuming your patriotism is genuine
> (again, even if misguided).
You are arguing that patriotism is in someone's "self-interest",
therefore
if you act out of it while ignoring the interests of others then you
are being
selfish.
>The reason is because the soldier has
> placed the interests of the group (country) ahead of his own (even if
> only in his own mind), given that he's willing to risk his life, which
> is the ultimate sacrifice one can make.
>
But you've just argued that he's being self-interested, and that
plus not
caring what happens to others you define as selfish. Sacrifice
doesn't
come into it.
> So the action of killing an enemy soldier is not selfish, and neither
> is it self-less.
>
> > > p.s. if you have a better word than "selfish", I'm all ears. :-)
>
> > Libertarian?
>
Yeah cause the authoritarians aren't selfish at all.
> (laugh)
>
> > -tg
tg
You may be confusing libertarian and Libertarian; Libertarians *are*
authoritarians.
-tg
> > (laugh)
>
> > > -tg
tg
I think the first trick is to be rigorous in separating actions from
internal states, and that indeed is a matter of language, since
"selfish" does have connotations. My preference would be the word
communitarian, which clearly is a description of an action---something
you do that benefits the community of other individuals; it says
nothing about motivation or internal state, or what you get out of it.
So joining the military is a communitarian act. I suppose if there
were a OneWorldGummintWithBlackHelicoptersUnderTheUN, signing up with
the WorldPolice would be the most broadly communitarian act.
-tg
John Stafford
<55084c5c-af03-40ee...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:09�am, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wait, you're giving him respect for joining the military for
> economic reasons?
> Why? If you don't believe in whatever mission the military is engaged
> in then joining them means killing or helping other people kill, for money.
At the time of joining, he (who is me) did believe the mission of the
service was a positive good, but I was a young, uneducated person who
did not know that in 1964 we were involved in Vietnam to the degree we
were. Much of the rest of my time in service (four years active) was
filled with anguish over the war. I rationalized my position as being
one who helped other soldiers to live through the war so that they could
re-evaluate their positions when/if they left the service. (I was a
medic.) I still do not know, nor question deeply, whether my
rationalization was perfectly reasonable or altruistic.
> If you believe
> that the military is doing something worthwhile then joining is saying
> you're
> ready to kill or help others kill for that purpose, but this guy
> specifically says he
> joined for the money/economic benefits.
Economic and social benefits. Correct.
John Stafford
<5245757e-8110-4bab...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
Why then is paying taxes not in one's self-interest?
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> I think the first trick is to be rigorous in separating actions from
> internal states, and that indeed is a matter of language, since
> "selfish" does have connotations. My preference would be the word
> communitarian, which clearly is a description of an action---something
> you do that benefits the community of other individuals; it says
> nothing about motivation or internal state, or what you get out of it.
>
> So joining the military is a communitarian act. I suppose if there
> were a OneWorldGummintWithBlackHelicoptersUnderTheUN, signing up with
> the WorldPolice would be the most broadly communitarian act.
Seems like the opposite to me. One joins the army to defend
the people against other people. One joins the one-world
police in order to defend the ruling class _against_ the people,
and facilitate its attacks and exploitations of them. Of course
there isn't any one-world police yet; maybe they would have
better propaganda than I'm imagining.
tg
I think you are not reading very carefully; I'm not talking about
internal states. But you also don't make sense even so, since people
who join the police often state that it is to 'protect and serve'.
-tg
Anarcissie
<0cb33601-230e-4ebb...@m38g2000yqd.googl
egroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was talking about how people functional politically.
Someone who _says_ they are joining the police to
protect and serve is reporting an internal, mental
state. In a world made up of competing and sometimes
warring political states, if one joins the military or
police of one of them one _may_ function to defend the
people of that political state against the people of
other political states. In a one-state world,
however, there is no such interstate conflict, and the
_only_ function the police or other agents of force
can have is to fight on behalf of the state's ruling
class against the rest of the people, that is, as I
said, facilitate their attacks on and exploitation of
the people. This fact is not changed by their mental
states. Of course, they also do similar things in a
multi-state world, but they _may_, on some occasions,
defend the people from invaders.
It seems to me, though, that the original question
requires us to consider the internal mental state of
the person who joins the military.
ta
But internal states matter when making moral assessments. Motive
matters (our criminal justice system is certainly clear on that).
Determining motive is not cut and dry -- like statistics or computer
science -- but then we wouldn't throw out human psychology for that
reason either.
> My preference would be the word
> communitarian, which clearly is a description of an action---something
> you do that benefits the community of other individuals; it says
> nothing about motivation or internal state, or what you get out of it.
>
> So joining the military is a communitarian act. I suppose if there
> were a OneWorldGummintWithBlackHelicoptersUnderTheUN, signing up with
> the WorldPolice would be the most broadly communitarian act.
>
> -tg
I'm left with thinking: so?? That's merely a description, which
doesn't say anything about whether the behaviour is desirable or not,
and these are judgments we have to make in life (again, using the
criminal justice system as an example).
tg
Why not? Behavior that benefits the community benefits the community.
Are you saying that communitarian acts are *not* desirable?
> and these are judgments we have to make in life (again, using the
> criminal justice system as an example).
I'm happy to discuss motivation but the whole point is that you can't
derive an individual's motivation from the act itself---people join
the military for a variety of reasons, as has been made clear. In the
law, people shoot people for a variety of reasons, but we first
classify shooting someone as "needs to be investigated", then look at
circumstances and motivation.
I'm trying to remove subjective reaction and pre-judgment from the
discussion by removing emotive and loosely applied language.
-tg
RVG
> In article
> <3aa031a6-ea70-4571...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> ta<padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So should we be congratulating our nation's veterans for making
>> enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
>> another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
>
>
They mostly die because they've signed for a job that involves killing
people they don't know and who don't know them - and they've lost the game.
Each soldier could have been a plumber instead. Imagine Iraq and
Afghanistan with fresh water in each house! And imagine the Monty
Pythons as the soldier-plumbers...
--
Jazz up your life!
Jazzez-vous la vie!
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://rvgjazznstuff.jamendo.net/
"La premi�re arme de la R�sistance c'est l'information." Lucie Aubrac
RVG
> In article
> ta<padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do people join the armed forces?
>
> Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
> offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
>
> If all I wanted was to serve my country (the USA), and if I could, then
> I would have chosen civil service, but it was not available.
>
> The main reason was economic: We came from urban areas and jobs were
> scarce in our area. We wanted to be off the streets. None were ready for
> college for various reasons, including affordability; our parents (if we
> had them) were typically financially conservative or poor. Most family
> associates had no knowledge of college and were not confident in their
> ability to achieve.
>
Similar story as my father's. He was an oil worker on a super-tanker.
Yet one day he missed the boat at Toulon, France and stayed there with
empty pockets. He was 17yo.
After a couple of days struggling for work and food, he finally decided
to join the Navy Paratroops (1er RPIMA, Red Berets), was sent to
Indochina where his adventure ended after 80 days of dropping food,
drugs and ammos to the guys down in Dien Bien Phu. The last days, the
paras chose to jump with the crates in order to try and give a hand to
the guys down there. He spent this last week crawling among the daying
corpses, unable to provide any help at all.
After that he did some intel work in Algeria, infiltrating the OAS for
the account of De Gaulle. It resulted in the arrest of several heads,
including some guys very close to Le Pen.
Then he ended his time peacefully in Senegal, training the National
Guard of the all-new Republic of Senegal with president Sedar-Senghor.
He was awarded the French M�daille Militaire just a few months before he
died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M�daille_militaire
> A hope for an environment with a more leveled field from which we could
> emerge with veterans benefits, a new start and a positive background.
>
When you join the army you're paid to go, not to come back.
> Unjustified optimism.
>
Euphemism.
> And to choose our branch of service. Remember, the draft was in force.
> Or parents and older relatives talked of it often enough that we
> believed it was immanent.
>
> Did any of our expectations come about? For some of us military service
> was a lesson in living without rights, brutal, deadly, and a powerful
> builder of camaraderie for better or worse. After separation we found
> profound discrimination from peers and potential employers, a GI bill
> wrecked by Nixon, civil unrest, and racism was still rampant. And of
> course, some died and many were handicapped for life.
>
The same happened in France after the election of Mitterrand and the
socialists (+ communists) in 1981. It was not a good time at all for
militaries, active or vets.
> Positives? I learned that if nobody is shooting at you, then life is
> pretty good.
Yup, I come from a family of soldiers since at least the 14th century:
in Russia until the communist revolution, then my father in France.
Since I suffer from migraines, I couldn't serve myself, and when I asked
to join as a military paramedic, the army recruiters didn't take me
seriously.
The army is like boxing: I hate the game but I respect the fighters.
RVG
> John Stafford a �crit :
>> In article
>> <a51d2e7f-439a-4224...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> ta<padd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do people join the armed forces?
>>
>> Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
>> offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
>>
>> If all I wanted was to serve my country (the USA), and if I could, then
>> I would have chosen civil service, but it was not available.
>>
>> The main reason was economic: We came from urban areas and jobs were
>> scarce in our area. We wanted to be off the streets. None were ready for
>> college for various reasons, including affordability; our parents (if we
>> had them) were typically financially conservative or poor. Most family
>> associates had no knowledge of college and were not confident in their
>> ability to achieve.
>>
>
> Similar story as my father's. He was an oil worker on a super-tanker.
> Yet one day he missed the boat at Toulon, France and stayed there with
> empty pockets. He was 17yo.
> After a couple of days struggling for work and food, he finally decided
> to join the Navy Paratroops (1er RPIMA, Red Berets), was sent to
> Indochina where his adventure ended after 80 days of dropping food,
> drugs and ammos to the guys down in Dien Bien Phu. The last days, the
> paras chose to jump with the crates in order to try and give a hand to
*decaying
> corpses, unable to provide any help at all.
> After that he did some intel work in Algeria, infiltrating the OAS for
> the account of De Gaulle. It resulted in the arrest of several heads,
> including some guys very close to Le Pen.
>
> Then he ended his time peacefully in Senegal, training the National
> Guard of the all-new Republic of Senegal with president Sedar-Senghor.
>
> He was awarded the French Military Medal just a few months before he
Bret Cahill
> > > enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
> > > another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
> > I for one hope very much they are acting in their own self-interest.
> > Why wouldn't defending this country be in one's interest?
> Why then is paying taxes not in one's self-interest?
It's patriotic for the poor to enlist and die for the country but it's
not patriotic to tax the rich for decent equipment to keep the poor
troops from dying.
It's like the GOP health care plan. Don't get sick but if you do get
sick, die ASAP.
Repugs are consistent here:
They prefer you die than the rich pay taxes.
Bret Cahill
Immortalist
> On Nov 11, 4:09 pm, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <a51d2e7f-439a-4224-82c6-7e5512d30...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > Why do people join the armed forces?
>
> > > Perhaps I should not answer and expose myself, but I will. I can only
> > > offer the reasons given by people I knew who joined when I did in 1964.
>
> > > If all I wanted was to serve my country (the USA), and if I could, then
> > > I would have chosen civil service, but it was not available.
>
> > > The main reason was economic: We came from urban areas and jobs were
> > > scarce in our area. We wanted to be off the streets. None were ready for
> > > college for various reasons, including affordability; our parents (if we
> > > had them) were typically financially conservative or poor. Most family
> > > associates had no knowledge of college and were not confident in their
> > > ability to achieve.
>
> > > emerge with veterans benefits, a new start and a positive background.
>
>
> > > And to choose our branch of service. Remember, the draft was in force.
> > > Or parents and older relatives talked of it often enough that we
> > > believed it was immanent.
>
> > > Did any of our expectations come about? For some of us military service
> > > was a lesson in living without rights, brutal, deadly, and a powerful
> > > builder of camaraderie for better or worse. After separation we found
> > > profound discrimination from peers and potential employers, a GI bill
> > > wrecked by Nixon, civil unrest, and racism was still rampant. And of
> > > course, some died and many were handicapped for life.
>
> > > pretty good.
>
> > road. Respect!
>
> > In the end, it sounds like it was more about self-preservation than
> > any kind of altruism, which I'm sure is the case for most people. When
> > you're broke, the rich have got you by the cohones.
>
> > But even for those who claim to join for love of country, isn't that
> > still the pursuit of one's own perceived self-interest? In this case,
> > there is an identification of "self" with "country" (or "God" or
> > "tribe" or "political party" or "religion" etc. etc.), and so the
> > action is still self-interested, yes?
>
> But what *would* count as altruism? I don't think there's any such
> thing, but you seem to have something in mind.
>
How about this definition from biology?
E.O. Wilson talks about hard-core and soft-core altruism.
Hard-core altruism he defines as pure
selfless giving, where you don’t
get anything back.
Soft-core altruism is the self-interested
you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours
behavior that is not altruistic in the
strictest sense but that does help
the world to get along.
Because Wilson estimates that hard-core altruism is likely to have
developed through selection working on family or tribal units, he
would expect hard-core altruistic behavior to extend mostly toward
those who are related or otherwise close to the altruist, and drop off
sharply outside of the altruist’s circle of friends and family.
Soft-core altruism, on the other hand, can in theory foster
interactions between any two individuals who each possess something
the other needs. I was struck by Wilson’s statement that the
distinction between these two forms of altruism is important because
“pure, hard-core altruism based on kin selection is the enemy of
civilization.” This is because the demands of “blood and territory”
will sooner or later disrupt efforts at cooperation on a large scale.
http://thinkingmeat.com/newsblog/?p=615
This is slightly edited & excerpted from THe Blank Slate by Steven
Pinker;
THE MOST OBVIOUS human tragedy comes from the difference between our
feelings toward kin and our feelings toward non-kin, one of the
deepest divides in the living world. ...
Throughout history, when leaders have
tried to unite a social group they have
trained their members to think of it as a
family and to redirect their familial emotions
inside it.
The names used by groups that strive for
solidarity-brethren, brotherhoods, fraternal
organizations, sisterhood, sororities, crime
families, the family of man-concede in their
metaphors that kinship is the paradigm
to which they aspire.
The tactic is provably effective. Several
experiments have shown that people are
more convinced by a political speech if the
speaker appeals to their hearts and minds
with kinship metaphors.
Verbal metaphors are one way to nudge
people to treat acquaintances like family,
but usually stronger tactics are needed.
[Accourding to Alan Fiske] ...the ethos of Communal Sharing arises
spontaneously among the members of a family but is extended to other
groups only with the help of elaborate customs and ideologies.
Unrelated people who want to share like a family create mythologies
about a common flesh and blood, a shared ancestry, and a mystical bond
to a territory (tellingly called a natal land, fatherland, motherland,
or mother country). They reinforce the myths with sacramental meals,
blood sacrifices, and repetitive rituals, which submerge the self into
the group and create an impression of a single organism rather than a
federation of individuals. Their religions speak of possession by
spirits and other kinds of mind melds, which, according to Fiske,
"suggest that people may often want to have more intense or pure
Communal Sharing relationships than they are able to realize with
ordinary human beings." The dark side of this cohesion is groupthink,
a cult mentality, and myths of racial purity-the sense that outsiders
are contaminants who pollute the sanctity of the group.
The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/
http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200205/pinker.shtml
From - Chapter 14 - Section 2;
The Many Roots of Our Suffering
- Feelings for Kin vs Non Kin, Nepotism, Comparing Groups by Family
Metaophors
THE MOST OBVIOUS human tragedy comes from the difference between our
feelings toward kin and our feelings toward non-kin, one of the
deepest divides in the living world. When it comes to love and
solidarity among people, the relative viscosity of blood and water is
evident in everything from the clans and dynasties of traditional
societies to the clogging of airports during holidays with people
traveling across the world to be with their families. It has also been
borne out by quantitative studies. In traditional foraging societies,
genetic relatives are more likely to live together, work in each
other's gardens, protect each other, and adopt each other's needy or
orphaned children, and are less likely to attack, feud with, and kill
each other. Even in modern societies, which tend to sunder ties of
kinship, the more closely two people are genetically related, the more
inclined they are to come to one another's aid, especially in life-or-
death situations.
But love and solidarity are relative. To say that people are more
caring toward their relatives is to say that they are more callous
toward their nonrela-tives. The epigraph to Robert Wright's book on
evolutionary psychology is an excerpt from Graham Greene's The Power
and the Glory in which the protagonist broods about his daughter: "He
said, 'Oh god, help her. Damn me, I deserve it, but let her live
forever.' This was the love he should have felt for every soul in the
world: all the fear and the wish to save concentrated unjustly on the
one child. He began to weep.... He thought: This is what I should feel
all the time for everyone."
Family love indeed subverts the ideal of what we should feel for every
soul in the world. Moral philosophers play with a hypothetical dilemma
in which people can run through the left door of a burning building to
save some number of children or through the right door to save their
own child. If you are a parent, ponder this question: Is there any
number of children that would lead you to pick the left door? Indeed,
all of us reveal our preference with our pock-etbooks when we spend
money on trifles for our own children (a bicycle, orthodontics, an
education at a private school or university) instead of saving the
lives of unrelated children in the developing world by donating the
money to charity. Similarly, the practice of parents bequeathing their
wealth to their children is one of the steepest impediments to an
economically egalitarian society. Yet few people would allow the
government to confiscate 100 percent of their estate, because most
people see their children as an extension of themselves and thus as
the proper beneficiaries of their lifelong striving.
Nepotism is a universal human bent and a universal scourge of large
organizations. It is notorious for sapping countries led by hereditary
dynasties and for bogging down governments and businesses in the Third
World. A recurring historic solution was to give positions of local
power to people who had no family ties, such as eunuchs, celibates,
slaves, or people a long way from home. A more recent solution is to
outlaw or regulate nepotism, though the regulations always come with
tradeoffs and exceptions. Small businesses-or, as they are often
called, "family businesses" or "Mom-and-Pop businesses"-are highly
nepotistic, and thereby can conflict with principles of equal
opportunity and earn the resentment of the surrounding community.
B. E Skinner, ever the Maoist, wrote in the 1970s that people should
be rewarded for eating in large communal dining halls rather than at
home with their families, because large pots have a lower ratio of
surface area to volume than small pots and hence are more energy
efficient. The logic is impeccable, but this mindset collided with
human nature many times in the twentieth century-horrifically in the
forced collectivizations in the Soviet Union and China, and benignly
in the Israeli kibbutzim, which quickly abandoned their policy of
rearing children separately from their parents. A character in a novel
by the Israeli writer Batya Gur captures the kind of sentiment that
led to this change: "I want to tuck in my children at night myself...
and when they have a nightmare I want them to come to my bed, not to
some intercom, and not to make them go out at night in the dark
looking for our room, stumbling over stones, thinking that every
shadow is a monster, and in the end standing in front of a closed door
or being dragged back to the children's house."
It is not just recent dreams of collectivism that are subverted, by
kin solidarity. The journalist Ferdinand Mount has documented that the
family has been a subversive institution throughout history. Family
ties cut across the bonds connecting comrades and brethren and thus
are a nuisance to governments, cults, gangs, revolutionary movements,
and established religions. But even a thinker as sympathetic to human
nature as Noam Chomsky does not acknowledge that people feel
differently about their children from how they feel about
acquaintances and strangers. Here is an excerpt of an interview with
the lead guitarist of the rap metal group Rage Against the Machine:
RAGE: Another unquestionable idea is that people are naturally
competitive, and that therefore, capitalism is the only proper way to
organize society. Do you agree?
CHOMSKY: Look around you. In a family for example, if the parents are
hungry do they steal food from the children? They would if they were
competitive. In most social groupings that are even semi-sane people
support each other and are sympathetic and helpful and care about
other people and so on. Those are normal human emotions. It takes
plenty of training to drive those feelings out of people's heads, and
they show up all over the place.
Unless people treat other members of society the way they treat their
own children, the answer is a non sequitur: people could care deeply
about their children but feel differently about the millions of other
people who make up society. The very framing of the question and
answer assumes that humans are competitive or sympathetic across the
board, rather than having different emotions toward people with whom
they have different genetic relationships.
Chomsky implies that people are born with fraternal feelings toward
their social groups and that the feelings are driven out of their
heads by training. But it seems to be the other way around. Throughout
history, when leaders have tried to unite a social group they have
trained their members to think of it as a family and to redirect their
familial emotions inside it. The names used by groups that strive for
solidarity-brethren, brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
sisterhood, sororities, crime families, the family of man-concede in
their metaphors that kinship is the paradigm to which they aspire. (No
society tries to strengthen the family by likening it to a trade
union, political party, or church group.) The tactic is provably
effective. Several experiments have shown that people are more
convinced by a political speech if the speaker appeals to their hearts
and minds with kinship metaphors.
Verbal metaphors are one way to nudge people to treat acquaintances
like family, but usually stronger tactics are needed. In his
ethnographic survey, Alan Fiske showed that the ethos of Communal
Sharing (one of his four universal social relations) arises
spontaneously among the members of a family but is extended to other
groups only with the help of elaborate customs and ideologies.
Unrelated people who want to share like a family create mythologies
about a common flesh and blood, a shared ancestry, and a mystical bond
to a territory (tellingly called a natal land, fatherland, motherland,
or mother country). They reinforce the myths with sacramental meals,
blood sacrifices, and repetitive rituals, which submerge the self into
the group and create an impression of a single organism rather than a
federation of individuals. Their religions speak of possession by
spirits and other kinds of mind melds, which, according to Fiske,
"suggest that people may often want to have more intense or pure
Communal Sharing relationships than they are able to realize with
ordinary human beings." The dark side of this cohesion is groupthink,
a cult mentality, and myths of racial purity-the sense that outsiders
are contaminants who pollute the sanctity of the group.
None of this means that nonrelatives are ruthlessly competitive toward
one another, only that they are not as spontaneously cooperative as
kin. And ironically, for all this talk of solidarity and sympathy and
common blood, we shall soon see that families are not such harmonious
units either.
The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/
http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200205/pinker.shtml
> -tg
ta
> In article
> Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 11:42 am, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So should we be congratulating our nation's veterans for making
> > > enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
> > > another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
>
> > I for one hope very much they are acting in their own self-interest.
>
> > Why wouldn't defending this country be in one's interest?
>
> Why then is paying taxes not in one's self-interest?
Don't hold your breath!
ta
They are, as long as they actually benefit the community. Does
volunteering to go kill Iraqis actually benefit the community though?
> > and these are judgments we have to make in life (again, using the
> > criminal justice system as an example).
>
> I'm happy to discuss motivation but the whole point is that you can't
> derive an individual's motivation from the act itself---people join
> the military for a variety of reasons, as has been made clear. In the
> law, people shoot people for a variety of reasons, but we first
> classify shooting someone as "needs to be investigated", then look at
> circumstances and motivation.
>
> I'm trying to remove subjective reaction and pre-judgment from the
> discussion by removing emotive and loosely applied language.
>
> -tg
>
>
>
> > > > For example, if the patriotic American soldier decides that pursuing
> > > > his nation's interests without considering
>
> ...
>
> read more »
tg
I think there is a simple way to understand why this is something that
needs to be discussed very objectively or not at all.
John Stafford ran around a battlefield for several years as a prime
target of the opponent. His purpose was to save people's lives; he did
this even though he was not trained or equipped to defend himself,
much less purposefully kill anyone. Are you saying that you are going
to make 'moral judgments' about him, and why he joined the military,
based on your opinion of whether his particular war was 'just' ?
There is a wide variation of psychological characteristics among all
the ranks in the military; you find caring people (altruists?), and
brutal thugs, and incompetent fools (sociopath, narcissist). But I
don't see how you can generalize anything about simply signing up;
most people are *way too young* to make an informed rational decision
when they do so. If you wish to judge someone, judge those who
perpetuate this form of child abuse beyond any reasonable utility to
the community.
-tg
>
> > > and these are judgments we have to make in life (again, using the
> > > criminal justice system as an example).
>
> > I'm happy to discuss motivation but the whole point is that you can't
> > derive an individual's motivation from the act itself---people join
> > the military for a variety of reasons, as has
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bret Cahill
Phew! NOW you tell me!
I was sure Fred "the Monolith of Logic" would have a quick boilerplate
response.
Bret Cahill
ta
So I'm confused. I'm just trying to understand what you think
"communitarian" means. So does killing Iraqis benefit the community or
not? And who does the "community" consist of?
tg
Of course it does, in theory, since it is intended to increase the
control of the USA community over resources. (Whether it does so in
practice is not relevant to a philosophical discussion.)
> And who does the "community" consist of?
I already brought this up. The community is whatever you decide it
is----joining the military of the USA benefits the USA, when the
military is used to control resources. If there were a world
government, then it would be the World community. We're just back to
the earlier point that two people could count as a community---or you
could count all of humanity as a community.
-tg
ta
But didn't you just argue that intent is irrelevant to such
discussions? So which is it -- are we looking at intent (motive) or
consequences?
> to increase the
> control of the USA community over resources. (Whether it does so in
> practice is not relevant to a philosophical discussion.)
Of course it's relevant -- if you want to define something as
"benefiting the community", then we have to look at the end result in
order to determine whether or not the behaviour actually does fit the
definition.
In addition, I don't agree about the "of course it does" part. If the
USA community attacks sovereign nations without just cause, then it
most certainly does *not* serve the interests of the community, even
if in the short run we gain more control over resources (not a given
either).
> > And who does the "community" consist of?
>
> I already brought this up. The community is whatever you decide it
> is----joining the military of the USA benefits the USA, when the
> military is used to control resources. If there were a world
> government, then it would be the World community. We're just back to
> the earlier point that two people could count as a community---or you
> could count all of humanity as a community.
>
> -tg
And I agreed, which is why I altered my position to say that you have
to take into consideration the effects on *all* communities. If one
community pursues interests that only narrowly benefits them, and with
disregard to the other communities, that that would said to be
"selfish".
I would argue that if the USA attacks Iraq to gain control over it's
oil, then it neither benefits the USA community, nor the other world
communities, and so it is a "selfish war".
Fred Weiss
> In article
> <5245757e-8110-4bab-9f3b-31304307a...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Nov 11, 11:42 am, ta <paddle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So should we be congratulating our nation's veterans for making
> > > enormous sacrifices for the sake of their country, or are they just
> > > another group of individuals acting in their own self-interest?
>
> > I for one hope very much they are acting in their own self-interest.
>
> > Why wouldn't defending this country be in one's interest?
>
> Why then is paying taxes not in one's self-interest?
I didn't say that conscription was in one's interest - or being
*forced* to serve in the military is in one's interest. That isn't
even the issue being addressed here.
I assumed the question was whether it could be in one's interest to
*volunteer* to serve in the military.
Taxes aren't voluntary. They are the confiscation equivalent of
conscription.
It can be in one's interest of course to support the gov't financially
in other ways, voluntarily (assuming of course that the go'vt is
serving one's interest, i.e. protecting your rights).
Fred Weiss
John Stafford
<aff29e02-f5f2-429b...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
And how would you fund the military?
Michael Price
If guys like you really cared about poor people dying you'd remove
barriers to competition in the health insurance industry and allow
poor people to buy the sort of insurance that's actually worth it for
them.
You don't. Neither do the Repugs.