Is it wrong to serve in the Armed Forces today?

[dtaggert]

Hullo, I just joined this board after a year-long affair with Ayn Rand's books. She's one smart cookie, and I have a few questions about some practical applications of her philosophy.

One of those is whether or not she or any of Objectivism's current intellectual leaders would consider it immoral to serve in the United States Armed forces at this time. I ask this because the Armed Forces participates in many activities that I know she would not approve.

[Captain Nate]

Hullo, I just joined this board after a year-long affair with Ayn Rand's books.  She's one smart cookie, and I have a few questions about some practical applications of her philosophy.

One of those is whether or not she or any of Objectivism's current intellectual leaders would consider it immoral to serve in the United States Armed forces at this time.  I ask this because the Armed Forces participates in many activities that I know she would not approve.

From the readings I have done, Rand had nothing but good things to say about the U.S. military and the U.S. soldier, even during the Vietnam War, which she disapproved of. I don't think she would have considered the soldiers immoral for choosing to serve now, or at any time, as long as the U.S. were a (semi-)free nation.

Edited August 14, 2005 by Captain Nate

[HaloNoble6]

I agree with Nate, though let me add that you should remember that soldiers are but a tool for preserving freedom as the current and future administrations see it. So, ask yourself, do you trust your life in the hands of the politicians of today to make the right choices and use soldiers in a rational manner.

After I graduated from college, one year after 9/11, a seriously contemplated joining the armed forces. I even set an appointment with an Air Force recruiter, but in the end ended up canceling it after deciding that I did not trust my life with the selfless likes of Bush.

[Hal]

I dont understand how anyone with moral integrity can sign up to a modern military, knowing full well that they are committing themselves to fighting in wars they will probably not agree with, with the consequence that they are likely to end up killing people who they do not think deserving of death. If a country had a history of only engaging in moral wars, then perhaps it could be justified (although I would never personally sign up unless I got to choose on a war-by-war basis whether I fought).

Despite this, I got the impression that AR considered joining the military to be morally acceptable - she gave the 'Philosophy: Who Needs it' speech at West Point after all, and I doubt she would have done this if she considered the military immoral.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

One of those is whether or not she or any of Objectivism's current intellectual leaders would consider it immoral to serve in the United States Armed forces at this time.  I ask this because the Armed Forces participates in many activities that I know she would not approve.

I think that Atlas Shrugged presents a clear example of Rand's view of living in a less than perfect world. If there is no value to you in living in society and there is a more rational alternative, that is where you should go. Even if the Armed Forces were "philosophically pure", that does not mean you should enter the armed forces: what you should do depends on your nature. If you are a natural painter and love painting and hate blowing off heads with rifles, but you feel that you have a duty to join the Army, then it would be immoral for you to join the service. There is certainly nothing about the military that makes it automatically immoral, anymore than it is automatically immoral to go into law or politics.

[DavidOdden]

I fail to understand how anyone with moral integrity could sign up to a modern military, knowing full well that they are committing themselves to fight in wars they do not agree with, with the implication that they are likely to end up killing people who they do not feel deserve to be killed.

Well, that would depend on the war I think. It's hard to imagine any rational person disagreeing with a war to liberate Iran, North Korea or Iraq, to take a few examples. The risk is that when you have an idiot commander in chief who gets it into his head that the military is supposed to provide live targets for snipers and teachers of the unteachable for the duration of a multi-year self-destructive exercise in nation-building, the noble purpose is more than negated.

OTOH the country is chock full of utter idiots who join the military and then whine "But I never thought I'd have to actually fight somewhere", or "I never signed up to fight in Iraq!" BFD: you signed a blank check, and if you are not willing to do what the military requires you to do, they you should stick to knitting.

Actually, in the modern world, it is not really necessary to have much of a military force. Nations invading nations is a thing of the past, having been largely replaced with large-scale terrorism. International police and intelligence agencies will be much more important for the purposes of defending nations. That, and absolute quarantine of nations that support terrorism (enforced from 40,000 feet). The manpower demands there are pretty minimal.

[skap35]

Few would disagree with the fact that the U.S. military serves the valuable purpose of protecting the most free nation on Earth. It's a given that America is far from the ideal of true freedom however, but even so, why would Ayn Rand disagree with defending the closest thing we have to the Objectivist idea of a free nation (as imperfect as it might be)?

[Hal]

Well, that would depend on the war I think.

But thats the point. You dont sign up to fight 'a' war - you sign up to fight whenever and wherever you are told to fight. It involves a complete surrender of autonomy.

Actually, in the modern world, it is not really necessary to have much of a military force. Nations invading nations is a thing of the past, having been largely replaced with large-scale terrorism.

What are you basing this on? Perhaps its been that way for the last 15 years, but I'm not sure why you'd think this will always be the case. Even in today's world, a land war somewhere like Taiwan or Africa isnt out of the question. Edited August 15, 2005 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

What are you basing this on? Perhaps its been that way for the last 15 years, but I'm not sure why you'd think this will always be the case. Even in today's world, a land war somewhere like Taiwan or Africa isnt out of the question.

Well, let's look at the wars of Africa. Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Mauritania yadda yadda yadda: all of them are either internal terrorist struggles (often pitting terrorist A against terrorist B ), or righteous revolutions to throw off an oppressive dictatorship. None of them involve the defense of a nation against an invader. The reason why I think it's going to be like this from now on is simply that at the national level, might no longer makes right. As much as Red China might covet Taiwan and might be abstractly willing to invade militarily to conquer Taiwan, they know very well that they cannot get away with that -- that there would be very serious repercussions for them, both economically and militarily, and they won't do it. Iran and Syria are not going to invade their neighbors: what they are going to do is support terrorist activities that may destabilize other governments. [bTW this does not mean that massive changes in the nature of international politics are inconceivable, so we could easily be thrown back to Napoleonic empire-building, but not in my lifetime]

[dtaggert]

Well I appreciate all your answers. I would tend to reason that way myself... that America is the best thing we've got going for us and I'm living in an irrational world, whether I like it or not, so I just have to be rational myself, and if it serves my interests to join the military, there is nothing wrong with doing so.

[Styles2112]

OTOH the country is chock full of utter idiots who join the military and then whine "But I never thought I'd have to actually fight somewhere", or "I never signed up to fight in Iraq!" BFD: you signed a blank check, and if you are not willing to do what the military requires you to do, they you should stick to knitting.

And I really hate those people too. Speaking as a U.S. soldier and a person studying objectivism, I joined the military of purely selfish reasons. I wanted money for college, another job skill, and the pride of protecting our nation's freedom. Now, like Hal said, I don't get a choice in which wars to fight. I signed my name on the dotted line saying I would obey all lawful orders, and that's what I intend to do. I haven't been sent anywhere yet (at least anywhere I don't want to be), which is nice for my wife and I, but at the same time I would welcome a chance to prove myself to myself. Nothing about that (to my knowledge) goes against any of Rand's principles.