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?
I said "no" to the first one, but I should point out that I'm not convinced the firemen in the recent news story are homophobic. If I was a bloke, I wouldn't want to go to Pride in uniform and on duty. Lots of pissed up gay blokes who like uniforms, and are on a march to celebrate their sexuality - the firemen are going to get a lot of hassle, a lot of dodgy comments and suggestions, a lot of arse-pinching. And I speak as someone who's stewarded Glasgow Pride.
To suggest, as a lot of media outlets did, that to be less than keen on that idea means they wouldn't save gay people from a fire is just ridiculous.
If absolutely nothing else... people in the first two situations have the opportunity to quit without effectively getting a black mark on their record, a soldier does not.
I said no on all counts. I wavered on the last one but really, I think if a soldier wants to be able to pick which wars to support, the thing to do is get out. Refusing a specific order is different, of course.
I think it depends on whether they can be spared without unduly inconveniencing others. If they can, go for it.
As it is, I've stated that homophobic firemen shouldn't be excused from support duties at gay rallies; I decided this because their "support" duties presumably would entail crowd control and preventing assaults, and I don't see how either of those aims could be morally questionable. (If a fireman actually thinks that violent assaults on some people are okay and shouldn't be prevented, that fireman needs to be out a job.) I said that Muslim police officers should have to guard the Israeli embassy - I thought longer about this one, but eventually decided that as their primary duty as I understand it (I could be very wrong, mind you) would be to prevent attacks, the same logic that applied above re: aims that aren't morally questionable would apply here. (If you support violence without immediate provocation, police work is not for you.) I said that I did think that dissenting soldiers should be excused from wars that they don't agree with, though. My reasoning there is that while the above two examples cited are specific and I can evaluate each of them as is, there are no specifics given here. And I think that asking a soldier to go in and kill people based on someone else's morals - not defensively but offensively too - is a lot more morally questionable than asking a fireman or a police officer to act defensively in the situations cited.
There may be flaws in my reasoning, and I'm sure someone'll tell me if there are, but that's how I see it at 4:30 am of a sleepless night.
I think if you find an intrinsic part of your job morally repugnant, you're in the wrong job and you should quit. I also have this rather hard-to-explain feeling that if you take a moral stand, you should be prepared to suffer for it. I accept, for example, that it's illegal to sit in a public road. I've done it, for reasons I think are valid, but I don't for a moment think the validity means I shouldn't be subject to due process of law as a result. The police and the fire service involve a necessary degree of universality in who you provide the service to - it wouldn't be okay for a fireman to ask someone if they were queer before consenting to save them from a burning building or for a policeman to refuse protection to an Israeli who was being attacked, and that's that. The armed services are different, but I can't see a way in which one could have an army where soldiers chose when to serve and when not to. To serve or not, that seems to be the choice.
Actually had the 'soldiers and wars' conversation with actual serving British army soldiers (and ex-soldiers), Officers and NCOs, on holiday. They agreed with my 'no' to being excused.
but they all stressed that outright human rights violations in the course of participating in any war were a definite NO though...
But I fully admit that I might have got a non-typical bunch...
In all three cases (plus the pharmacy issue raised in the comments), individuals have chosen their career path and need to realize there are positive and negative aspects of that career path. They also need to take responsibility for their career choices.
Therefore, although initially I was wavering, I'm going to answer 'no' to all three.
I find it upsetting that people think soldiers should be able to pick and choose what wars to take part in, unless they're *forced* to be members of the military.
And I don't mean 'socio-economic conditions made them feel that being a soldier was the only viable career option,' because at the end of the day unless someone is threatening to send you to military prison for disobeying a draft order, you have CHOSEN to be a soldier, and you're fairly well compensated for it. If you're going to conscientiously object, you damn well better do it before you eat up millions of dollars/pounds in training and equipment costs.
At the moment I'm working as an admin assistant. If I walked into work and had a moral objection to the direction the department was heading in, and thus refused to *do my job,* they would be well within their rights to tell me, 'either do it, or get the hell out.'
Maybe what's needed is an option for soldiers to resign without it affecting them in civilian life. But no way, no how, should someone be able to say 'I don't agree with this part of my job, so I won't do it, but you can't penalize me for that.'
You always have such difficult polls. I suppose that is a good thing.
I don't feel anyone should be drafted to be a soldier... I don't think you can or should force someone to fight for something when they don't want to. But as for people who've willingly joined the armed forces... well in regards to what was said above about making it optional in aggressive situations and required in defensive ones, what about in the case where your country has been bombing another country, and then the other country decides to retaliate by invading yours? Should you be required to defend your country, when you perhaps feel the other country is more justified than your own, even though it is defensive?
But I can also see the issue, that soldiers are trained and paid so that they will later follow orders. If any soldier could choose not to fight, then it would seem the cost of training and paying them had been in vain... People would join the armed forces just to make money, and then decide to quit instead of doing what they were paid to do.
As for the first question... well since fires can spread and affect people regardless of their sexual orientation, beliefs, etc., if would seem that a fireperson shouldn't pick and choose which fires to fight. But in the case of non-fire-fighting duties... I don't have time to think all that through right now.
Not going to actually vote because I'm really not sure what my answers are.
Re the firemen, as I commented already in response to someone else, I don't necessarily think they were homophobic. I don't think firemen should be leafleting. And I also can't blame the firemen for not wanting to go to the gay rally, whether they are homophobic or not. That said, I don't think they should necessarily be able to pick and choose if they are contracted to do the job. Maybe they could have been allowed to go out of uniform or something?
Regarding the Muslim polic officers I'm not going to comment as I don't know enough of the issues.
Soldiers is a hard one. As someone says, it's not like they can just quit if they don't like what they're asked to do. I also liked someone's comments about whether it's offensive or defensive. While soldiers are paid to obey orders I think some free-thinking is important. And yet.. I don't think they should be excused from fighting necessarily.. so yeah, I really don't know what answer I'd give!
Maybe it is just me, but I fail to see how this guy brought police into disrepute unless he REFUSED to guard the Embassy. As I understand it, he just asked the question. His superiors made allowances and found a replacement and there was no harm done. I wonder if he were not a Muslim if this would be in the newspapers at all. Would it have been any more or less acceptable for someone to ask not to do the duty because they wanted to go home early that night to see their kids? IF it is true that he brought up the subject with his superiors and they rearranged him with someone else willing to do the job, I fail to see the harm. I have asked not to go out on site visits for my job before now and someone else has gone in my place. I don't expect someone to question why - it is a matter between me and my boss.
Difficult questions! This shook me a bit at first, but on reflection I think there's a difference between the first two and the third. The firemen and the police officers are protecting people, helping them. They are being asked to treat everyone they encounter equally, regardless of affiliation / identity, and I think that's right. If you're a fireman, you don't get to only put out fires in the homes of people you like; if you're a police officer, you enforce the laws (ideally) equally for all. There may be practical reasons for not putting Muslims on duty at the Israeli embassy (because of harrassment by visitors / inhabitants / random passers-by, etc) but I don't think you get to "opt out".
The soldiers are being asked to kill. I think that's different from being asked to protect. I think that they are obliged to fight in defensive contexts, but if they feel that a given war is morally wrong, then they should be entitled to speak up against it. That may well get them thrown out of the armed forces, but moral stances always have a cost.
No to all three. Even the soldier, who faces more difficulty in resigning from his or her duties on short notice, knew what was expected of him or her when signing up. If fighting in a particular action is unconscionable to that person, they should refuse and then accept the consequences that arise from that refusal.
![[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 subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
To suggest, as a lot of media outlets did, that to be less than keen on that idea means they wouldn't save gay people from a fire is just ridiculous.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
As it is, I've stated that homophobic firemen shouldn't be excused from support duties at gay rallies; I decided this because their "support" duties presumably would entail crowd control and preventing assaults, and I don't see how either of those aims could be morally questionable. (If a fireman actually thinks that violent assaults on some people are okay and shouldn't be prevented, that fireman needs to be out a job.) I said that Muslim police officers should have to guard the Israeli embassy - I thought longer about this one, but eventually decided that as their primary duty as I understand it (I could be very wrong, mind you) would be to prevent attacks, the same logic that applied above re: aims that aren't morally questionable would apply here. (If you support violence without immediate provocation, police work is not for you.) I said that I did think that dissenting soldiers should be excused from wars that they don't agree with, though. My reasoning there is that while the above two examples cited are specific and I can evaluate each of them as is, there are no specifics given here. And I think that asking a soldier to go in and kill people based on someone else's morals - not defensively but offensively too - is a lot more morally questionable than asking a fireman or a police officer to act defensively in the situations cited.
There may be flaws in my reasoning, and I'm sure someone'll tell me if there are, but that's how I see it at 4:30 am of a sleepless night.
no subject
Please, however, understand that by "excused", I actually mean fired.
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
but they all stressed that outright human rights violations in the course of participating in any war were a definite NO though...
But I fully admit that I might have got a non-typical bunch...
no subject
Therefore, although initially I was wavering, I'm going to answer 'no' to all three.
no subject
And I don't mean 'socio-economic conditions made them feel that being a soldier was the only viable career option,' because at the end of the day unless someone is threatening to send you to military prison for disobeying a draft order, you have CHOSEN to be a soldier, and you're fairly well compensated for it. If you're going to conscientiously object, you damn well better do it before you eat up millions of dollars/pounds in training and equipment costs.
At the moment I'm working as an admin assistant. If I walked into work and had a moral objection to the direction the department was heading in, and thus refused to *do my job,* they would be well within their rights to tell me, 'either do it, or get the hell out.'
Maybe what's needed is an option for soldiers to resign without it affecting them in civilian life. But no way, no how, should someone be able to say 'I don't agree with this part of my job, so I won't do it, but you can't penalize me for that.'
no subject
I don't feel anyone should be drafted to be a soldier... I don't think you can or should force someone to fight for something when they don't want to. But as for people who've willingly joined the armed forces... well in regards to what was said above about making it optional in aggressive situations and required in defensive ones, what about in the case where your country has been bombing another country, and then the other country decides to retaliate by invading yours? Should you be required to defend your country, when you perhaps feel the other country is more justified than your own, even though it is defensive?
But I can also see the issue, that soldiers are trained and paid so that they will later follow orders. If any soldier could choose not to fight, then it would seem the cost of training and paying them had been in vain... People would join the armed forces just to make money, and then decide to quit instead of doing what they were paid to do.
As for the first question... well since fires can spread and affect people regardless of their sexual orientation, beliefs, etc., if would seem that a fireperson shouldn't pick and choose which fires to fight. But in the case of non-fire-fighting duties... I don't have time to think all that through right now.
no subject
Re the firemen, as I commented already in response to someone else, I don't necessarily think they were homophobic. I don't think firemen should be leafleting. And I also can't blame the firemen for not wanting to go to the gay rally, whether they are homophobic or not. That said, I don't think they should necessarily be able to pick and choose if they are contracted to do the job. Maybe they could have been allowed to go out of uniform or something?
Regarding the Muslim polic officers I'm not going to comment as I don't know enough of the issues.
Soldiers is a hard one. As someone says, it's not like they can just quit if they don't like what they're asked to do. I also liked someone's comments about whether it's offensive or defensive. While soldiers are paid to obey orders I think some free-thinking is important. And yet.. I don't think they should be excused from fighting necessarily.. so yeah, I really don't know what answer I'd give!
no subject
no subject
The soldiers are being asked to kill. I think that's different from being asked to protect. I think that they are obliged to fight in defensive contexts, but if they feel that a given war is morally wrong, then they should be entitled to speak up against it. That may well get them thrown out of the armed forces, but moral stances always have a cost.
No.