What's the more ethical profession?

[theprestige]

The most ethical profession is professor of ethics, obviously.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Is that an argument for the immorality of having sex in any position other than missionary?

Well, I never! I did not think there'd be need to present arguments for the immorality of such filth! What on Earth did your mother teach you, I wonder?

 

[Mycroft]

You've clearly never seen The Crying Game.

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

With the operative word (per, the OP) apparently "becoming a..." *

The proximate reason for becoming a prostitute is generally regarded as short-term financial gain with the notion their "retirement plan" may be a tad lacking.

The proximate reasons(s) for becoming a soldier could include;

Patriotism/sense of duty/love of country/conscription which would imply a sense of nationalism as the primary motive.

Financial gain is likely a ways down on the list as most officers make far less than their private sector counterparts (weighing duties & responsibilities) and many enlisted personnel (w/families) qualify for public assistance such as food stamps, etc..

Given that a successful functional military establishment usually means that you are the one writing the history books, a high societal "moral" value placed upon military service likely has basic human nature at it's core.

The legal distinctions are fairly evident.

* USA context

 

[Cain]

Everything I know about the military I learned from Aaron Sorkin

I'm not sure about the title or framing of this thread. "Ethical profession" conjures up "professional ethics" in my mind. Doctors, lawyers and soldiers have written codes they're required to follow. Prostitutes do not have the same sort of ethics -- but, of course, that's not what's intended in the original post, which I think translates to, "on the whole, which profession is more moral?"

If you asked the American public, I think a majority would agree that serving in the military is just about the most morally praiseworthy job on the planet. And that disgusts me.

So what do we find so ennobling?
1) Austerity of lifestyle. The country that consumes **** like crazy praises young men living in bunks. Hmmm... then again, I bet we also think highly of sexually abstinent monks. But if you're an educated, socially conscious white guy living a simple life communing with nature in Concord, Massachusetts, then **** YOU. Think you're better than me?

2) Risk. They put their lives in harm's way with the intention of protecting America. (This does not track with reality much more than praying to God for protection, but we'll put it aside for now).

3) Surrenders autonomy. All of us surrender some autonomy in our jobs. Kevin Bacon from A Few Good Men:

Don't you dare lump me in with Jessup and Kendrick just because we wear the same uniform. I'm your friend and I'm telling you, I don't think your clients belong in jail but I don't get to make that call! I represent the government of the United States without passion or prejudice and my client has a case!

Of course, it's easier to quit some jobs. You don't like working for Coldstone's, you can put in your two weeks notice:
Hey everyone, I'm puttin' in my two weeks notice... 'cause I want y'all to NOTICE... I'm not doin' jack-****... for the next TWO weeks... Or you can just quit.

In most other jobs you're allowed to be gay and talk **** about your boss. Not that talking **** about your boss is gay... unless we mean the totally AWESOME dude-on-dude, give-it-to-him-hard kinda gay.

Aaron Sorkin-Daily Show liberals may oppose the current wars, but they're all about deep-throating the troops. "They didn't choose to go to Iraq" is a frequent cry from these apologists. Well, before anyone turns himself into a Risk(TM) piece that's moved around at the behest of man-children, he should exercise due-diligence and research his future employers. Do you trust the "Defense" department with your life? Do you trust them not to wage unnecessary wars of aggression? Do you trust them to prosecute wars in accordance with moral principles? Do these questions even cross the minds of seventeen year-olds making the decision to join? Let's face it, they go in because "daddy" did, or cartoonish notions of patriotism, or because they can't hack it in college, or because they need money to go to college, or because they have NO plans and recruiters have sold them on the financial security of working for the federal government.

(It's worth mentioning the U.S. government spends ridiculous amounts of money just to get people to join. Cut back the advertising budget, and I'd like to see how many volunteer. Instead of "accelerating" their life, kids watching MAURY POVICH will just see another ITT-tech commercial and probably piss away tens of thousands of dollars majoring in Criminal Justice or Animation.)

Now, you also have varying degrees of moral responsibility. Darth Rotor noted there are people who serve in the military without ever killing anyone. OK, you can have the guy who gives the order to drop bombs, the manager-analog who oversees the operation, the engineers who built the bombs, the guys who loaded them, the dudes who fly them, and the person who presses the button. I'm sure this diffusion of responsibility helps people sleep at night. The engineer is just trying to make a living, while helping "America" in the abstract. The person who pulls the trigger is only following orders.

In corporations you have the CEO (responding to market pressure), his pack of wolves (trying to feed their families... and get bigger houses), all the way down to people who answer phones and clean the building. In an evil company that bamboozles people into buying crap products, do you assume responsibility for customer service? You're not in sales. What if you're a shareholder? What if you work for a law-firm that represents them?

When it comes to varying degrees of responsibility, chances are you pay taxes, which then supports the war effort. Throeau refused to pay a poll tax because he saw the Mexcian-War as an expansion of slavery. Now that's a moral person.

I think the Animal Liberation Front serves as a better point of comparison than prostitution. What's in it for these "terrorists" in ski masks: There's no glory, no salary, no pension, no parades, no health-care, no promise of virgins in heaven. They're not going to regal wide-eyed civilians with old "war stories" because their activities are completely anonymous. It's also do-it-yourself. If there's an incendiary device, YOU might have to make it. YOU have to choose the target. YOU have to plan the attack. And YOU have to face the consequences, which are unbelievably steep: a guy firebombed three cars in Oregon (less 50K in damages) and he's serving a 22 year sentence. That's probably better than death, though I'm sure some people, especially religious people, would rather be gunned down in a hail of bullets and get a hero's funeral. Perhaps most importantly, ALF refuses harm humans or animals and have a track record they can put up against any military.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

You had a great post about the stupidity of blind hero worship going, and my finger was poised over the nominate button.

Then you went and started telling people how ALF are heroic.

Ooooh! So close!

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

And I thought he was calling ALF a bunch of HO's?

Military force and government have a symbiotic relationship in that one exists for the perpetuation of the other. Whether it's 200+ nations versus a one world government it will always be SS/DD.

A wise person once stated that "ethics is a funny suit in that one size fits very few".

 

[Cain]

Then you went and started telling people how ALF are heroic.

I have to find a way to alienate everyone. I never described them as heroic though. Maybe I omitted arguments against them (e.g., by attacking research laboratories they're delaying medical treatments, and therefore indirectly killing people).

I'm much less sympathetic to so-called "pro-lifers," but assuming their more radical fringe put away those silly rifles and destroyed medical equipment... I'd understand. They think innocent babies are murdered, and an abortion clinic that's out of commission makes it a little more difficult to terminate a pregnancy. They're interfering with the rights of women, depriving doctors of a right to practice medicine, and all for a blob of tissue ("it has finger nails!"). Animals are a different game, but whatever.

What about abolitionist terrorists? The Boston Tea Party? John Brown murdered people. The Sons of Liberty murdered people. The A.L.F. does not murder people. The United States military trains soldiers to kill.

Anyone remember survey reported a few years ago:

WASHINGTON — In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, fewer than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18496711/
And these figures also probably under-represent the facts. I like the quote from the "libertarian" at Cato.

 

[Cain]

Since this does deal with the ethics of the military, here's a better account of the ethics survey conducted by the Pentagon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402151.html

In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. "Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," the Army report stated.

"These are distressing results," said Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "They highlight a failure to adequately train and supervise our soldiers."

Troops never have to take personal responsibility. It's the fault of bureaucrats for failing to teach adults that playing Monster Truck with Abdul's car is, you know, wrong.

 

[BenBurch]

Both are ethical and honorable professions if the person who is doing them comports themselves in and ethical and honorable way.

 

[JihadJane]

I guess "selling your body" is a euphemism for "dirty, dirty sex", and it's not strictly equivalent to what a soldier does in the field.

What does a soldier do for sex in the field?

 

[Richard Masters]

What does a soldier do for sex in the field?

Military brothels, brokeback mountain-style sex, and other? But this is a non-sequitur. The point was, as Cain pointed out, that signing up for the military means submitting your body and yourself to whatever physical abuse the chain of command hungers for. A common objection to prostitution is that women are being used and subjected to abuse merely for money, but that's the case for soldiers as well.

 

[Richard Masters]

<snip>

Well, before anyone turns himself into a Risk(TM) piece that's moved around at the behest of man-children, he should exercise due-diligence and research his future employers. Do you trust the "Defense" department with your life? Do you trust them not to wage unnecessary wars of aggression? Do you trust them to prosecute wars in accordance with moral principles? Do these questions even cross the minds of seventeen year-olds making the decision to join? Let's face it, they go in because "daddy" did, or cartoonish notions of patriotism, or because they can't hack it in college, or because they need money to go to college, or because they have NO plans and recruiters have sold them on the financial security of working for the federal government.

<snip>

I think this is what I was getting at. Some people claim that one joins the military for honor and country, or to protect the United States, but there are so many reasons to join, and not all of them are honorable or praise-worthy.

People who dogmatically worship soldiers tend to be the same people who abhor the "immorality" of prostitution, so pointing out the similarities is very satisfying.

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

What's the more ethical profession? Becoming a prostitute or becoming a soldier?

ETA: To add some context: an acquaintance thinks that prostitution is an immoral way to make money. I then noted that joining the military is too because both prostitutes and soldiers sell their bodies.

Do you have any findings of fact or in law that military service is considered immoral or is this simply a personal opinion?

 

[Cain]

I think this is what I was getting at. Some people claim that one joins the military for honor and country, or to protect the United States, but there are so many reasons to join, and not all of them are honorable or praise-worthy.

I remember that link from the thread about being Patriotically Correct. The people commenting on the article are idiots. Veterans -- of the U.S. military, at least -- are among the most arrogant people I have ever met. Real "I'll pray for you types" who regard service as holy. All that "I'm protecting your freedom of speech" -- even though the vast majority would make flag burning illegal, and probably imagine using violence against those who have unkind things to say about America. It's total horse-****. If the United States was under attack, recruitment would surge (see 9/11). If the United States attacked non-threats in the Middle East, recruitment would plummet (see Iraq). What's the greatest threat to my security? Some fool country or terrorist group with a nuke. How do our soldiers stop that?

Bill Maher said something about how it take bigger balls to be hijacker than some Private Jackoff lobbing missiles into enemy territory. No ****. Can imagine if some blue-eyed American took over a jetliner with BOX-CUTTERS and then successfully crashed it into a building killing hundreds of the enemy? He'd be the biggest bad ass on the planet. Towns would be fighting for the privilege to name their high school after him.

 

[Mycroft]

Military brothels, brokeback mountain-style sex, and other? But this is a non-sequitur. The point was, as Cain pointed out, that signing up for the military means submitting your body and yourself to whatever physical abuse the chain of command hungers for. A common objection to prostitution is that women are being used and subjected to abuse merely for money, but that's the case for soldiers as well.

Since soldiering doesn't pay very well, it's hard to argue that they do it just for money. Some do, I'm sure, but only the ones who start with a very low expectation of what their income potential really is. There are a lot of reasons to become a soldier, some are noble, some are not, others are inbetween.

People who dogmatically worship soldiers tend to be the same people who abhor the "immorality" of prostitution, so pointing out the similarities is very satisfying.

I bet it's a lot more satisfying to imagine it in your own mind than it is in real life. In real life the people you want to make angry with your observation are people who don't share your point of view, so they're not likely to share the same assumptions that make your reasoning work. The result is either they just get mad at you or they dismiss you as ignorant.

 

[Richard Masters]

Do you have any findings of fact or in law that military service is considered immoral or is this simply a personal opinion?

What does law have to do with morality?

 

[Cain]

Since soldiering doesn't pay very well, it's hard to argue that they do it just for money. Some do, I'm sure, but only the ones who start with a very low expectation of what their income potential really is. There are a lot of reasons to become a soldier, some are noble, some are not, others are inbetween.

So then we wouldn't expect them to offer 40 thousand dollar signing bonuses. That's not a lot of money to teenagers. And forget about the non-wage compensation, which is negligible.

 

[Richard Masters]

Since soldiering doesn't pay very well, it's hard to argue that they do it just for money. Some do, I'm sure, but only the ones who start with a very low expectation of what their income potential really is. There are a lot of reasons to become a soldier, some are noble, some are not, others are inbetween.

I agree, but doing something for money doesn't mean you expect a lot of it. Maybe you want a steady income (job security for 4+ years). Also, there's housing allowance (tax free), and considerable tuition assistance (if you have the time), and per diem rates, and as Cain noted, signing bonuses.

I bet it's a lot more satisfying to imagine it in your own mind than it is in real life. In real life the people you want to make angry with your observation are people who don't share your point of view, so they're not likely to share the same assumptions that make your reasoning work. The result is either they just get mad at you or they dismiss you as ignorant.

I'm willing to share my reasoning and assumptions (premises).

 

[Mycroft]

I'm willing to share my reasoning and assumptions (premises).

Sure, but what's the point? You don't want to debate the ethics of military service. What you seem to want is to irk people who believe it's a noble service.