In the Army now...

Our discussion of who should be punished for torture in the army--interrogators, commanding officers or policy makers--touched on one of my strongest convictions. This is the conviction that the single most important characteristic of a human being is free will. Although some physicalists will argue that everything is predetermined and that all events in the universe are bound to happen because they are subject to physical and chemical laws, I do not believe this. I believe in free will, and I believe the refined exercise of free will over primal impulses is what defines humans as human, not merely another mammal. In my mind, then, volition is the most sacred of human traits. The worst crime against humanity is to turn a human being into an animal or a machine.

Nic brought up the argument that punishing individuals for following immoral orders undermines the effectiveness of the military. I cannot disagree with this statement. As far as effectiveness goes, the military depends on swift, strict obedience. If every soldier was to make a habit of questioning orders, the military would lose a great deal of effectiveness. However, I do not think the military's effectiveness is as important as preserving a human being's humanity. I have always thought the process of "breaking someone down to build him or her back up," even if it is as part of a team, was monstrous. By doing this, the military deliberately attempts to destroy a person's identity and to subsequently re-form it in the way that is most useful to the military--that is, teaching them that what they want and think as an individual does not matter when compared to the needs of the military and the nation.

This is the greatest possible violation of humanity. Accepting this process forces one to accept the legitimacy of a soldier following orders, no matter how monstrous, because on the aggregate the need for expediency and efficiency outweighs the possible negative effects, such as soldiers being willing to torture. In my mind, though, even if a soldier's orders were always morally sound, soldier-creation as it is practised in the United States would still be wrong. No amount of benefits can excuse the violation of humanity done by systematically seeking to destroy a person's will. No level of efficacy can make up for breaking the single most important aspect of a human being--his or her right to make up his or her own mind.

Civil disobedience is a sacred expression of humanity for this very reason. It is the act of recognizing that no government has the authority in the end to decide for each individual what is right or wrong. It may be right for the government to punish dissenters in order for society to function properly, but it is also right for those who civilly disobey to act according to their own conscience, of their own volition, and stand up for what is right. This is what it means to be human, and it is exactly why I argue that individuals should be held responsible for their own actions. We should not foster a society that teaches people they are not capable of determining what is right for themselves, and we should send the message that those who do not act on their own conscience, regardless of their orders, are committing a crime against themselves, against society, and against all of humanity.