X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:42:58 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

The most logical and philosophical discussion I've had since Lincoln-
Douglas Debate National Finals in Fargo.  Congrats.  Sorry it's a bit
long.


> >Mill's concept of Utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the
> >greatest number) do appear more acceptable.
>
> Not to me.
>
> Let me put it this way. If enslaving all Asians would maximize
> the greatest good for the greatest number, would you find that
> "more acceptable"? It is PRECISELY this sort of problem that
> inspired Rawls to write his book. It is, in particular, the
> problem that utilitarianism has no room for individual rights.

Please do not confuse me with someone who advocates Millian
Utilitiarianism as an acceptable philosophy of life.  (That would
most definitely contradict my conservative, Republican, "Hi,
President Reagan",  "get the government off our backs" position.)  In
fact, in pure theory, John Rawls is better supported by the Republican
philosophy than by the Democrat philosophy in that we do *not*
infringe on the rights of anyone to provide a greater good to others
(i.e. no more "soak the rich"...)
    However, in isolated instances, we must recognize the value of
Utilitarianism as a practical, strategic solution.  Such
instances are almost always limited to situations of war.


> (Where are all the part-time libertarians when this unabashed
> Millian shows up? I guess I'm on my own, huh?)

1> I'm not an unabashed Millian as explained previously.
2> You're doing fine.


> >Ok.  So the military allows anyone that wants to join the military
> >in, and then--according to their utilitarian right from within--
> >fires them.  Is that more acceptable?
>
> Cleverer, but not more acceptable. :-)

Even what I originally proposed wouldn't work considering the immense
cost of replacing discharged servicemen.  $27 million for 932 people
is a little ridiculous.


> I understand the need for draconian measures IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE,
> but certainly not in time of peace.

A reasonable perspective.  However, the military should never be in a
time of peace.  There are times of fighting and times of not
fighting.  It is for nations to decide whether or not we are at war
or at peace.  Why does this make a difference?
    It costs us $27 million to replace 932 service men ousted for
their sexual orientation.  This also does not reflect the time
requirements.  If we were to go to war tomorrow (unlikely, but never
to be ruled out), then would the military be able to claim "in the
heat of battle" and oust all gay military personnel?  Furthermore, in
the interim before replacing lost personnel (in the modern technology
wars we have), the war would be over.


>
> I reluctantly admit that if there were MATERIAL evidence of that
> sort, you would have a very good case.
>
> (But there isn't.)

First of all, Utilitarianism is definitely not an ideal philosophy
for anything.  However, in some instances it is the best possible
philosophy from the available choices.  In WWII, one of the islands
in the Pacific was completely destroyed by the Japanese.  The U.S.
had cracked the code and could have warned the islanders, but to do
so would inform the Japanese that we had cracked their code.  We
withheld that information from them, and they were all killed-- in
the interest of the greatest good for the greatest number, or the
rest of the world.
    We have already agreed that if the military can establish
violation of preservation of life, then there might be a case here.
However, I refuse to sit back and wait for the military to prove my
point...<smile>...  So as to assist them in their analysis, the
following points are offered:

1.  Utilitiarianism provides for the safety of the greatest number of
people.  (That is its nature.)  The military must use utility to
preserve the greatest amount of life.  (We don't *want* to sacrifice
anyone, but if necessary, Spock's logic is upheld.)

2.  The military should therefore weigh and balance the rights of all
and then consider the POTENTIAL losses that they could have.  (We
don't wait to prove loss of life by going to war and bringing home
our dead.)

3.  If gays are kept out of the service, their rights are probably
violated.  (NOTE: I am not arguing this point, but merely reflecting
an obstacle to their discharge.)  However, what is the alternative.
    There is a definite troop demoralization that has been documented
in the surveys of troops asked how they would feel about this
decision.
    There is a great probability that admitted gays would suffer
violent action at the hands of their fellow service members, thus
furthering troop demoralization and disunity.
    EITHER of these cases is definitely detrimental to a war
situation, for which the military should be ALWAYS prepared.

From the perspective of guaranteeing preservation of life, the *gay
personnel* have the responsibility to show that their admittance will
not threaten the safety of others, and/or themselves as well.
Innocent until proven guilty has definite exceptions, and the
military has always been one of those exceptions.


> >work, but in theory, if people could get out of a draft because of
> >it, that could potentially constitute a national security threat.
>
> I doubt it very much.
> People can already get out of military service on religious grounds.

The L.A. Times article simply stated this point because while people
can already get out of the service on religious grounds (not easy to
do, but possible), allowing gays into the military would essentially
offer anyone who did not want to serve with gay fellow soldiers the
right to stay home.  It is not extending a *new* right to object due
to religious objections; it is simply INCREASING the ease and
probability (and almost certainly, numbers of people) to not serve
when drafted.


I hope these responses seem fairly reasonable.


--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU