Morals in the Armed Forces

G. K. Chesterton once said, "That a man must be certain of his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it." Man relies on morals to keep himself in check, to dictate the reason for his decisions. By it's own definition morals are motivations based on ideas of what is right and what is wrong. However, who decides what is right or wrong? What power governs the decision making process. In the Armed Forces Officer Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall highlights a tragedy at My Lai, where American soldiers killed as many as 500 unarmed civilians. The question is then posed where was the officer's morality, why didn't he stop his men. On the other hand one could then ask where were the soldiers morality why didn't they stop themselves or at least each other? Speculation has been made that people went mad, however, I do not feel this is the case. Morality is a product of nurture rather then nature. There is no set standard for what makes things moral. The American people would like to believe, as Gen. S.L.A. Marshall did, that there is a set standard for morality that is instilled in every human being across the globe. This, however, is untrue. Instead morality is a product of the environment in which you live, the time in which you live and the population you are around. The American people play up this deception to placate themselves into reckoning that across the globe we all see human life as being equal. It makes humanity seem far more friendly. The truth of the matter is we don't. If a person really took a look around the world they would see a range of moral values in different cultures and places.

In Afghanistan culture dictates, if a woman is accused of having premarital sex she should be killed, so as not to bring shame to the family. Americans would see a woman stoned to death and think the men who did it murderous barbarians. We would think it morally irreprehensible; to the Muslim community this practice predates our sexual revolution and new ideas. The practice has been around for centuries and is accepted among the community. People have no moral quarrel about killing the accused woman because they are held to a different moral standard. In fact it is morally unacceptable for no one to take action against the woman and allow the family to be shamed.

In Africa where AIDS is rampant in many areas it is widely believed that if an infected man has sex with a virgin they will be cured. In actuality this is not the case, but that has not stopped many men from raping women of all ages to try and find the virgin cure. I, like many others view this as wrong and view these people as odd, wondering what wires got crossed in their minds that the men could not see the error in their ways. In Africa though, women are not regarded with the same status as men and because of their inequality it is not viewed as wrong to do this in the men's eyes. Hence there is no moral dilemma in raping a woman.

If we even took a look in our own backyard we would find that America does not have a unifying set of moral values like we chose to trust. In the inner city the value of life is weigh differently. In a place where crime is an epidemic, petty crimes that would be shameful for upper class people to commit go virtually unnoticed. Killing a person is badge of honor; it dictates a person's strength and gives them credentials when dealing with others. You would not so easily disrespect a person if you thought it might get you killed. Their idea of respect is something they hold in the highest regard. Most see people in this climate as a vast pool of criminals; I see them as people with different morals and thus different standards to what makes life livable.

People