Mcmahan's Epistemic Limitations

Some individuals know to obey their superior, unless they want to be faced with consequences. However, there are occasions individuals choose to be disobedience because they believe it is the right thing to do for the certain situation that they are faced with. This could in an individual being terminated, dishonorably discharged, or suspended. Knowing the outcome of being insubordinate, individuals are usually obedient, even when they are in a situation that is morally wrong. Kelman and Hamilton, in their article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” examine how Lt. Calley's unquestioning obedience resulted in the massacre of many women and children. Theodore Dalrymple, in his article, “Just Do What The Pilot Tells You,” asserts that there is a balance between when one should be obedient to orders or one should not be. A movie, A Few Good Men, shows two U.S. Marines, Dawson and Downey, being charged for the murder of a fellow Marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and Lt. Daniel Kaffee represents them as their lawyer. Nicholas Leveillee, in his article, “The Role of Obedience in Society,” asserts that one needs to find a balance between obedience and insubordination, so individuals can maintain their individuality and a stable society. Adam Cohen, in his article, “Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain,” asserts that an

Tim O’Brien’s book “The Things They Carried” epitomizes the degradation of morals that war produces. This interpretation is personified in the characters who gradually blur the line dividing right and wrong as the motives for war itself become unclear. The morality of soldiers and the purpose of war are tied also to the truth the soldiers must tell themselves in order to participate in the gruesome and random killing which is falsely justified by the U.S government. The lack of purpose in the Vietnam War permanently altered the soldier’s perspective of how to react to situations and in most cases they turned to violence to express their frustration.

The movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

The items the soldiers carry hold a substantial amount of credibility throughout each personal story; however, within O’Brien’s story, he lacks credibility aside from the obvious tangible elements of the items held, questioning where the truth lies within these evidential fragments of the soldiers’ lives. These personal accounts of exact measurements attest the reader’s knowledge of war as well as the mental ability to calculate the exact weight upon each person’s hump through a fiction of mental and emotional agility. O’Brien quotes within Chen’s criticism stating, “A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe” (Chen 77). This background knowledge of O’Brien’s theory that an “absolute occurrence is irrelevant because a true war story does not depend upon that kind of truth,”(Chen 77) places the credibility of the information upon the emotional accounts that O’Brien’s writing bestows upon the personalities of the soldiers. The “academic tone that at times makes the narrative sound like a government report (Kaplan 45),” adds documentation like analysis of these compilations of war endeavors as told by the narrator. Kaplan continues that the “transitional phrases such as “for instance” and “in addition,”’ (Kaplan 45) as well as “whole paragraphs dominated by sentences that begin with “because,”” (Kaplan 45) convince certainty of the

In the study of military history, historians at times use what is known as the “fog of war” technique with expectations of keeping away from the historians’ fallacy. In this approach, the actions and choices of the historical subject are assessed primarily on the premise of what that individual knew at that time and not on future developments that the individual could not have known. Fischer’s approach is a scientific-like “what and how” only approach and rarely fields the question of “why.” Fischer states that the “why” deals with the metaphysical issues that bring no definitive results. Fischer’s work shows that historiography can only be taken seriously if it is practiced according to strictly empirical procedures and can only be done by asking the correct questions and answering them according to the strict methodology of “historical logic.” The historian’s task is to solve problems, to ask appropriate questions and to seek answers by researching the information based on archival and other methods of research. Interpretation is inevitable, but the interpretation should conform to the

Military personnel operating in combat missions must maintain mental and situational awareness of their area of operations. This includes a complete understanding of their physical and doctrinal training. Besides accomplishing their mission, soldiers must also consider the rules of engagement and the personal and professional ethics, values and morals that factor into their decisions in high stress environments (Allen, 2013). Well planned missions will never be executed perfectly. Due to human nature, soldiers may be faced with an ethical dilemma.

If a soldier doesn't follow orders while in a combat zone this makes them combat ineffective and when a

O’Brien’s unification of fact and fiction is to illustrate the idea in which the real accuracy of a war story is less significant than storytelling. The subjective truth about what the war meant and what it did to change the soldiers is more meaningful than the technical details of the

“This is true.” (O’Brien, 420) – with this simple statement which also represents a first, three-word introductory paragraph to Tim O’Brien’s short story, “How to Tell a True War Story”, the author reveals the main problem of what will follow. “Truth” – when looked up in a dictionary, we would probably find definitions similar to sincerity and honesty on the one hand, and correctness, accuracy or reality on the other hand. When looking at these definitions, one can make out two groups of meaning: While sincerity and honesty are very subjective, correctness or accuracy are supposed to be objective by nature. One can be sincere and still not report the truth, due to the simple fact

Throughout Tim O'Brien's short work "How to tell a true war story" O'Brien has two reoccurring themes. One is of the desensitization of the troops during their hardship regarding the events of the Vietnam War, and the other is of the concept of truth. Truth may seem simple enough to explain, but is in fact endowed with many layers. The story is chalked full of contradictions, as well as lies, and embellishments, and yet O'Brien claims that these are the truth. The truth, whether it be war or society's, is in fact a concept that can be conveyed many times and in many ways. Whereas each is independently untrue, the combined collaboration of these half-truths is in essence the only real truth.

What a unit or leader does or does not do to Soldiers who fail the APFT or do not meet the standards of AR 600-9 is where possible ethical dilemmas arise. I was the height/weight NCO for a company for almost four years, and we never chaptered a Soldier for

You have to consider for a moment the serious nature of this action. When we deploy, we rely on the person to our left and right. The profession of arms is one that requires all to do their part. Combat, by nature, is a physical, difficult, and demanding task. A person’s very life may depend on the actions of those around him or her. Ask any Soldier pulled from the vehicle hit by an improvised explosive device if that is true or not. You must have personnel on whom you can rely. The actions and directions from the brigade forced us to accept people who may be

Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.

As we have discussed many times in class, an ethical issue is an issue that focuses on whether an action is morally right or wrong. Epistemic issues focus on how we know that certain facts are true or how we know what is possible. An example of an epistemic issue could be "how do we know that God is real?". This would be an epistemic question because it inquires about our knowledge and how we have come to that conclusion. An ethical issue could be, "how should we respond to humanitarian issues in foreign countries?". This can be considered an ethical issue because it asks what would be considered a moral decision in a certain situation.

During the Vietnam War, the higher ranks of the civilian services received an influx of men from “the universities and the various think tanks” (9). Equipped with game theories, analytical systems, and complete confidence in their abilities, these men aimed to “solve all the ‘problems’ of foreign policy” (10). The thinking of the “problem-solvers” has three defining characteristics. First, “problem-solvers” engaged in deception and falsehood out of “mistaken patriotism” (11). These men did not lie to ensure the survival of the United States; their deception aimed to protect the country’s image (11). In fact, the theories of the “problems-solvers” were created “for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home, and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress” (14). Because American involvement in Vietnam was designed to preserve the image of American supremacy, “problem-solvers” operated “not on the welfare of the nation, but ‘on the reputation of the United States and its President’” (15). Second, “problem-solvers” exhibited arrogance of mind, an “utterly irrational confidence in the calculability of reality” (39). These men denied contingent truths, facts that “carry no inherent truth within themselves, no necessity to be as they are” (16). To minimize the uncertainty of reality, “problem-solvers” created formulas and algorithms to predict “political and historical facts as though they were necessary” (11). Although reality is “man-made to