Actually my brain filled in the blank on the first one with "... should be fired." I'm not certain that's true, but I'm thinking so. Having anyone in a critical lifesaving position be picky and choosy is a very bad idea.
So I guess that answers the second question, too.
A soldier's role in a war is either offensive or defensive. So I'd say that, yes, the soldier can morally be choosy, regardless of any and all aphorisms about knives and wielding hands.
If one does not agree with the objective of directly defending their home soil, one should not become a soldier. But that's not usually what soldiers are being called on to do these days. Attacking a country overseas that hasn't attacked first, hasn't shown any signs of attacking first... am I the only one who finds a very clear line here?
So if I'd split the third one into "from offensive actions they don't agree with" and "from defensive actions they don't agree with" then you'd say "Yes" to the first and "No" to the second?
I'll also say (having now read the article) that the case of the Muslim police officer is unclear. Police officers should not be excused from potentially lifesaving positions for moral reasons, but if a person is subject to harrassment that prevents them from doing their duties and it's known that swapping jobs with someone else would help the problem -- then, yes, of course, they should be swapped out. More for the sake of the job they need to have done than for the sake of the person doing it.
I, of course, wasn't there, so cannot say whether this criterion applies to the guard, but it sounds like it might well.
In the example of the homophobic firemen, it doesn't sound as if they'd be any more interfered with than any other firemen who might be sent: just that they'd be more annoyed by it. Again with the lifesaving jobs and can't be choosers.
Re the firemen, leafletting is hardly a life-saving job, and it hardly needs to be done by firemen in uniform, I don't think. I wonder why we're using highly trained and in-demand firemen to distribute leaflets anyway. Hire a student, for God's sake ;o)
Ahh, this story's not linked from here. I thought the firemen were there for safety checks, etc. :-)
I'm still waffly on it regardless. At that point, you have two questions:
1 - Should we give firemen non-crucial duties like distributing leaflets?
2 - Should firemen be able to beg off any of their duties because they don't like the circumstance?
I still want to give a resounding NO on question #2. Question #1 is "perhaps not", but it doesn't cancel out my idea of the obligation of honor for anyone in such a position, regardless of what they're doing on behalf of their organization.
Yes, most definitely. For me, it's a question of responsibility. Firefighters are responsible for saving lives, police are responsible for protecting people, and soldiers (from my PoV at least) are responsible for their defense of their nation. Being ordered to attack another nation is also part of being a soldier, but not the basis of it and so should not be required. Also, this policy would result in fewer wars which is most definitely a good thing.
Yeah, I think that's pretty much how I sussed it out. Of course, it's practically impossible to make sweeping generalisations on this one, and if you can make me a compelling argument for either, I'm sure I'd consider it as an individual case. La~
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Actually my brain filled in the blank on the first one with "... should be fired." I'm not certain that's true, but I'm thinking so. Having anyone in a critical lifesaving position be picky and choosy is a very bad idea.
So I guess that answers the second question, too.
A soldier's role in a war is either offensive or defensive. So I'd say that, yes, the soldier can morally be choosy, regardless of any and all aphorisms about knives and wielding hands.
If one does not agree with the objective of directly defending their home soil, one should not become a soldier. But that's not usually what soldiers are being called on to do these days. Attacking a country overseas that hasn't attacked first, hasn't shown any signs of attacking first... am I the only one who finds a very clear line here?
no subject
No, I agree with you.
no subject
That makes sense to me.
no subject
I'll also say (having now read the article) that the case of the Muslim police officer is unclear. Police officers should not be excused from potentially lifesaving positions for moral reasons, but if a person is subject to harrassment that prevents them from doing their duties and it's known that swapping jobs with someone else would help the problem -- then, yes, of course, they should be swapped out. More for the sake of the job they need to have done than for the sake of the person doing it.
I, of course, wasn't there, so cannot say whether this criterion applies to the guard, but it sounds like it might well.
In the example of the homophobic firemen, it doesn't sound as if they'd be any more interfered with than any other firemen who might be sent: just that they'd be more annoyed by it. Again with the lifesaving jobs and can't be choosers.
no subject
Re the firemen, leafletting is hardly a life-saving job, and it hardly needs to be done by firemen in uniform, I don't think. I wonder why we're using highly trained and in-demand firemen to distribute leaflets anyway. Hire a student, for God's sake ;o)
no subject
I'm still waffly on it regardless. At that point, you have two questions:
1 - Should we give firemen non-crucial duties like distributing leaflets?
2 - Should firemen be able to beg off any of their duties because they don't like the circumstance?
I still want to give a resounding NO on question #2. Question #1 is "perhaps not", but it doesn't cancel out my idea of the obligation of honor for anyone in such a position, regardless of what they're doing on behalf of their organization.
no subject
no subject
In which case how about an intermediate case - UN/NATO peacekeeping missions to places like Sudan, Bosnia, Lebanon, etc?
no subject
no subject