[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ben]
Based on this exchange and later comments, I'm thinking that perhaps Platt's 
definition of blind obedience is not so blind at all.  Seemingly, upon
receiving an order, a soldier's decision-making process should look like this:
1)  Is the body that issued this order a moral one?
2a)  If yes, then follow the order.
2b)  If no, then question the order.

[Arlo]
The perfect painter will always paint a perfect painting. Is America so "moral"
that all her orders are ipso facto "moral ones"? This stock faith in the
perfect, unerring "morality" of the nation's orders (or the orders of any
static social structure), is exactly what is the issue. Historically, men have
always retroactively absolved themselves of any personal immorality by saying
"I was just following orders". For example, the legions of the Reich considered
the nation to be so moral as to make all her orders "moral". They never
questioned their actions (to make a generalization) because they transferred
the moral-decision making part to the state.

I am not proposing chaos here, Ben, don't fall into the same dichotomous traps
as Platt proposes where either "blind obedience" or "absolute chaos" are the
only options. The military, as I've said, demands greater obedience, and I am
not proposing that every solider second guess every command. But I am proposing
that there is a line, that each person must define for themselves, where
serving morality may not mean serving the state. If we think, for one minute,
that WE are immune from the kind of historical immorality that has always
followed the type of hyper-nationalism Platt espouses, we are only deluding
ourselves.

[Ben]
Hence the question shifts to the morality of the orders rather than the morality
of following them.

[Arlo]
I don't see this as a shift at all. Since the beginning I have said that one
must decide the morality of the order, and decide for him/herself it is moral.
The social structure will ALWAYS tell you the order is moral. No one said
"killing the villagers in My Lai is immoral, but let's do it anyway", the order
was present as "moral" because it "served America's interests" (to simplify). 

[Arlo previously]
Blind obedience to social structures invariably leads to immoral behavior

[Ben]
This is still in my mind the meat of this discussion.  I find myself disagreeing
with this position.  The opposite of blind obedience is some amount of reasoned
analysis before acting on an order.  Now I'm a big fan of reasoned analysis and
I usually think that more of it is better, but I don't see it as an easy fix to
all problems.

[Arlo]
I'm not sure what to say to this. Like I said, if you were ordered to do what
they did at My Lai, would you have? Should you have? 

[Ben]
The soldier is the least experienced of the bunch and may have entirely
different interests than the army.  The soldier may be following biological
patterns of survival when the generals are following social patterns of army
success.  This is a bad results, since according to Pirsig, social vaules are
higher than biological ones.  Seemingly, it's only when the soldier is more
intellectual than the generals that a better result occurs; this seems highly
unlikely.

[Arlo]
When the solider is more intellectual? I see this differently, Ben. Although in
many, if not most, instances, acting out the orders of more informed superiors
is desirable (and will likely save your life more often than endanger it),
there HAS to be a point where, even at the risk of "a firing squad" good men
say "no". That you suggest soldiers are incapable of understanding when
intellectual quality is being subserviated by social quality is stunning if I
read it correctly. 

[Ben]
For instance, suppose the order came down that soldiers are not to rape innocent
village girls.  An immoral soldier who has been taught to question his orders,
may well disregard this  particular order on the basis that he knows better. 
He knows that innocent village girls are the enemy, that they'll go on to have
kids that will kill his kids, so he might as well assert his dominance now.

[Arlo]
Such a person would behave immorally whether "ordered" to or not. If you would
rather have a military consisting of people who need to be ordered NOT to rape,
rather than a military consisting of people who'd REFUSE an order TO rape, that
is, I suppose, your perogative. I'd prefer the latter.