• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's the more ethical profession?

Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not any more than I want to irk those who believe slavery is justifiable on the basis of race, or who believe that the United States is a great country because it is a Christian nation and God is rewarding us and protecting us (and only us), or those who think I owe my freedom to the apparently homogeneous noble character of any given soldier who only joined because of me and his country and no other reason - and furthermore, I am weak or unpatriotic because I decided to do something besides sign up for the military.
 
Soldiers aren't holy.

But in a democracy they follow orders from politicians that are chosen by the population.
They not well-payed, they live with little luxury and little privacy.
They are sent into danger when deemed needed by our elected leaders.
When they are uniquely successful or take extreme risk they are awarded with tokens that are entirely symbolic (medals).

Society cannot afford to give soldiers adequate monetary compensation for what they do. Therefor they are rewarded by having a special status in the public mind and sometimes an extra-special status if they can prove to have been extra brave by winning the aforementioned tokens.

Of course, this system is in place so that soldiers will fight for their country in extreme circumstances (armed conflict).

Ex soldiers I know, joined because:
-Couldn't get out of the draft due to criminal record, go to IDF combat unit.
-Can't afford one's own helicopter gunship, join air force.
-Enjoys outdoor activities, jeeps, guns and other man stuff, join commandos.

Two of the three joined because they liked a challenge.
One of those took a bullet whilst distributing aid in Iraq.
 
The ambiguity starts with the name of the department in charge typically being called Defence. Defence of what? Is it mostly focussed on defence, or is offence also part of its remit?
 
Eddie Dane said:
<snip>

Society cannot afford to give soldiers adequate monetary compensation for what they do.
Click to expand...

Why not? Not everyone in the military puts his/her life at risk more than a randomly chosen civilian. Many jobs in the military are nearly identical to those in the civilian sector. I am reminded of cooks, trumpet players, satellite technicians, intelligence analysts, nuclear physicists.

Therefore they are rewarded by having a special status in the public mind and sometimes an extra-special status if they can prove to have been extra brave by winning the aforementioned tokens.
Click to expand...

A common argument for glorifying soldiers is their courage, as though non-soldiers don't have any. We shouldn't forget that soldiers don't have a monopoly on courage.

They are glorified for shooting at people who haven't threatened us, enforcing arbitrary curfews in foreign countries, regulating foreign markets (i.e. drug trade), crushing inconvenient governments, and in isolated cases engaging in torture.

With the disparity in military technology, it's difficult to imagine there is much room for bravery, especially when invading poor countries.

Of course, this system is in place so that soldiers will fight for their country in extreme circumstances (armed conflict).

Ex soldiers I know, joined because:
-Couldn't get out of the draft due to criminal record, go to IDF combat unit.
-Can't afford one's own helicopter gunship, join air force.
-Enjoys outdoor activities, jeeps, guns and other man stuff, join commandos.

Two of the three joined because they liked a challenge.
One of those took a bullet whilst distributing aid in Iraq.
Click to expand...

That's admirable (I am not being cynical), but out of the 3 million people in active duty or reserves, how many took a bullet while distributing aid, and of those, how many distributed aid out of altruism vs. strictly because they were ordered to?

In other words, I think some soldiers are more than deserving of special status, especially the ones who joined out of altruism and are conscientious about their impact. I just don't think it's accurate to assume that they are all altruistic and conscientious.
 
Telaynay's G'son said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but it comes across as jingoism.

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..
Click to expand...

See posts regarding bonus incentives and job security.

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.

<snip>
Click to expand...

We win our battles, therefore our soldiers are moral people? Is that what you mean?
 
Travis said:
Yes, both soldiers and prostitutes sell themselves. So do NFL players.

But the NFL provides us with entertainment and prostitutes provide sex. Both of which we could live without. Soldiers, on the other hand, do something that is constructive an necessary.
Click to expand...

Everyone sells themselves.



To answer the OP question;
which would embarrass you more?
A. Your mother's a whore.
or
B. Your mother's a soldier
 
The Painter said:
Everyone sells themselves.

To answer the OP question;
which would embarrass you more?
A. Your mother's a whore.
or
B. Your mother's a soldier
Click to expand...

The knee-jerk reaction answer is A. But is embarrassment really synonymous with morality? And if it is, a better question would relate to someone who isn't married, for example, a sister, or a daughter.

I mean, if my mother was gay that would also embarrass me, but it wouldn't mean that she is immoral. Simply that for some reason (perhaps I've never gotten over my prejudices, or that society still vilifies and condemns homosexuality), I find it embarrassing.
 
Wow. It truly blows my mind how so many 'educated' types can be so ignorant about poverty - and its power.

Poverty will push a person into whoredom or nationalistic murder quicker than you can say 'two dolla make you holla'. From where I stand I can say with confidence, that they don't really like doing it. They do it because they think they have to. They think it's their best option. And they're usually right.

I find it nauseating when 'well off' finger-pointers sit in their air-conditioned homes with their DVR's and their steaks and then try and judge the majority of these poor soldiers - or raped prostitutes with labels of "more unethical" and "less unethical."

What a farce.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Yes, both soldiers and prostitutes sell themselves. So do NFL players.

But the NFL provides us with entertainment and prostitutes provide sex. Both of which we could live without. Soldiers, on the other hand, do something that is constructive an necessary.
Click to expand...

There were likely prostitutes long before we ever needed soldiers and hopefully one day we will no longer need soldiers but I think people would still pay for sex even then.

As to what is the more ethical profession though, I think that's a silly question. Ethics vary from person to person and culture to culture. At the moment there is a market for both, so people practice both. There are heroes and villains in both professions and as long as its volentuary I see no problem with it.
And I'm sure someone will bring up forced prostitution (which I find a vile mistreatment of humans), but there are also a large number of forced soldiers (which I find equally vile).
 
Richard Masters said:
That's admirable (I am not being cynical), but out of the 3 million people in active duty or reserves, how many took a bullet while distributing aid, and of those, how many distributed aid out of altruism vs. strictly because they were ordered to?
Click to expand...

You are right about this, of course.
He was in Baghdad because the Yankees were all busy blowing up Fallujah and needed Brits to replace them.

And the army gave him the job because he is a helicopter pilot, not because he is a philanthropist.
 
Richard Masters said:
I mean, if my mother was gay that would also embarrass me, but it wouldn't mean that she is immoral. Simply that for some reason (perhaps I've never gotten over my prejudices, or that society still vilifies and condemns homosexuality), I find it embarrassing.
Click to expand...

So if your mom was gay, that would embarrass you?? Wow. Are you 10 years old? If not, you may be an adult but you are certainly not grown up. I find your attitude immoral.
 
The Painter said:
So if your mom was gay, that would embarrass you?? Wow. Are you 10 years old? If not, you may be an adult but you are certainly not grown up. I find your attitude immoral.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I would feel embarrassed. That's different from recognizing that it shouldn't embarrass me.

I find your attitude immoral.
Click to expand...

It's a feeling, not an attitude. My attitude is that it shouldn't embarrass me. But the feeling would be embarrassment.
 
Richard Masters said:
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.
Click to expand...


Indeed, that's why soldiers are called cannon fodder.

We live in an era of wage slavery, held together by the State's monopoly on violence. Soldiers are important, disposable tools in this constant war to possess and use our bodies.
 
Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
Do you have any findings of fact or in law that military service is considered immoral or is this simply a personal opinion?

Richard Masters said:
What does law have to do with morality?
Click to expand...

The OP appears to posit that the act of joining the military is immoral.

Morality means different things in different societies however with the common trait that immoral (adverse to the public good) oft equates to illegal as well is why I asked for the clarification.

The act of becoming a prostitute (turning a trick) is in many jurisdictions, considered immoral as well as a violation of law.

The act of becoming a soldier (taking the oath) is neither.

Therefore, using your logic, the act of anyone working for a living (wherein your time & body are requisite) is immoral.
 
Telaynay's G'son said:
<snip>

Therefore, using your logic, the act of anyone working for a living (wherein your time & body are requisite) is immoral.
Click to expand...

It's not my logic. It's the logic of some people who criticize prostitution. In particular Mormons who think you ought to treat your body as though it were a temple of God (therefore no tattoos, piercings, sex without a covenant).
 
Last edited:
Richard Masters said:
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 (emphasis added) is too because both prostitutes and soldiers sell their bodies.
Click to expand...

You are dodging the OP context.

So, you have disdain for Mormons...it that what this thread is all about?
 
Mycroft said:
Since soldiering doesn't pay very well, it's hard to argue that they do it just for money.
Click to expand...

Why? Burger-flipping at McDonalds doesn't pay very well, but it's not hard to argue that people do that just for the money.
 
Telaynay's G'son said:
You are dodging the OP context.

So, you have disdain for Mormons...it that what this thread is all about?
Click to expand...

It's about double standards, dogma, jingoism. I picked the military because I knew it would cause considerable dissonance to learn that becoming a prostitute may cause less harm than joining the military.

Many have pointed out the inadequacy of the OP. I agree, I should have written it with more clarity, and framed the question better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom