The Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) is often described as having three synergistic aspects—physical, mental, and moral. The Director, retired Marine LtCol Joseph C. Shusko, remains adamant, however, that the primary end state of the training is an ethical Marine warrior.
This article has been written to explore the concept of an ethical warrior and to discuss how we clarify, activate, and sustain the ethic at the Martial Arts Center of Excellence (MACE). Clarify means: what is the warrior ethic? Activate means: how do I get the feeling of it deep in my conscience, deep in my “gut”? Sustain means: once I get the feeling, how do I keep it from “wearing off,” especially under the stress of combat but also in garrison, on liberty, at home, and after I finally hang up my uniform? The intent is to provide Marines throughout the Corps with encouragement and ideas as they hone their MCMAP skills and strive to live the warrior ethic.
What Is the Ethical Warrior?
The term “ethical warrior” seems to have struck a chord with people who believe that a Marine represents the epitome of honor, courage, and commitment on and off the battlefield. There is no “official definition” of an ethical warrior, but after years of discussion and refinement, the most satisfying description we can offer is that the ethical warrior is a “protector” of life. Whose life? Self and others. Which others? All others.
The Physical-Moral Synergy
It should be noted that the primary purpose of MCMAP is not to teach philosophy per se. On the contrary, we have learned that when it comes to ethics, Marines respond best to the tie-ins (stories with a strong emotional impact that inspire moral behavior) rather than to a lecture on philosophy.
One of the most important, yet unheralded, phenomena of MCMAP is that we see that moral lessons are best delivered in context of the physical training. It works like magic, as many Marine leaders who have felt the bonding feeling of shared adversity can tell you. In other words, to develop ethical warriors, realistic physical training and the values tie-ins work best in combination rather than separately—and much better than a purely intellectual approach. The take away here is that the physical-moral approach works, and a full philosophy curriculum is not required. Yet, as the Greeks said, “All actions derive from philosophy.” In that regard, it must be said that the warrior ethic is based upon a clear philosophy of values. The bedrock of that set of values is one universal value.
The Universal Value
That concept of a universal value is the subject of a favorite MCMAP tie-in. It is a story from the book, Values for a New Millennium,1 by one our mentors, the late Robert Humphrey, who was a rifle platoon commander on Iwo Jima. We call it “The Hunting Story.”
After World War II America was the undisputed leader of the world. For a while everyone loved us, even our former enemies. But soon people began to resent us due to what was perceived as our superior attitude.
We Americans thought that the dislike that many people felt for us was unjustified and ungrateful. After all, we had defeated fascism in World War II and were rebuilding many parts of the world out of our own generosity. Still, resentment for Americans overseas was real—and growing.
In one particular country in Asia Minor, the unrest was beginning to have strategic implications during that delicate time of détente. The trouble centered on the presence of an American missile base there. The local people said that they wanted the base closed and the Americans to go home. Humphrey’s job was to find a solution to the conflict.
The basic problem was plain old culture shock. The Americans working in that poor ally country thought that the local people were ‘dumb, dirty, dishonest, lazy, unsanitary, immoral, violent, cruel, crazy, and downright subhuman,’ and what’s more, they let them know it. No matter what he did, Humphrey couldn’t stop the negative talk—partially because some of it seemed true!
One day, as a diversion, Humphrey decided to go hunting for wild boar with some people from the American embassy. They took a truck from the motor pool and headed out to the boondocks, stopping at a village to hire some local men to beat the brush and act as guides.
This village was very poor. The huts were made of mud and there was no electricity or running water. The streets were unpaved dirt and the whole village smelled. Flies abounded. The men looked surly and wore dirty clothes. The women covered their faces, and the children had runny noses and were dressed in rags.
It wasn’t long before one American in the truck said, ‘This place stinks.’ Another said, ‘These people live just like animals.’ Finally, a young air force man said, ‘Yeah, they got nothin’ to live for; they may as well be dead.’
What could you say? It seemed true enough.
But just then, an old sergeant in the truck spoke up. He was the quiet type who never said much. In fact, except for his uniform, he kind of reminded you of one of the tough men in the village. He looked at the young airman and said, ‘You think they got nothin’ to live for, do you? Well, if you are so sure, why don’t you just take my knife, jump down off the back of this truck, and go try to kill one of them?’
There was dead silence in the truck.
Humphrey was amazed. It was the first time that anyone had said anything that had actually silenced the negative talk about the local people. The sergeant went on to say, ‘I don’t know either why they value their lives so much. Maybe it’s those snotty nosed kids, or the women in the pantaloons. But whatever it is, they care about their lives and the lives of their loved ones, same as we Americans do. And if we don’t stop talking bad about them, they will kick us out of this country!’
Humphrey asked him what we Americans, with all our wealth, could do to prove our respect for the peasants’ human equality despite their destitution. The sergeant answered easily, ‘You got to be brave enough to jump off the back of this truck, knee deep in the mud and sheep dung. You got to have the courage to walk through this village with a smile on your face. And when you see the smelliest, scariest looking peasant, you got to be able to look him in the face and let him know, just with your eyes, that you know he is a man who hurts like you do, and hopes like you do, and wants for his kids just like we all do. It is that way or we lose.’
This story emotionally affects most of us Americans. We sympathize with those poor villagers. Perhaps it is because we are natural underdog lovers. Remember, a cause of our own Revolutionary War against the British was that they looked down on us. Recall this popular motto from that time: “Don’t tread on me.” It was on one of our flags.
But the point of the story, according to Humphrey, is that beneath our culture, beneath the fine clothes or the dirty rags, beneath the color of our skin, we all love life, we all hurt sometimes, and we all want for our children. The people in that village weren’t speaking out, but in their hearts each of them was saying, “Don’t look down on me. You are my equal. My life and the lives of my loved ones are as important to me as yours are to you.” This value—Humphrey called it the “life value” in his work—appears to be a universal value. Everyone wants their lives to be respected. We believe that this is the value that Jefferson was talking about as the “inalienable right” to life in our enabling document, the Declaration of Independence.
But there is more. Did you notice the exact words the old sergeant used in the story? He said, “I don’t know either why they value their lives so much. Maybe it’s those snotty nosed kids, or the women in the pantaloons.” That is an important clue to further understanding of the life value. When we talk about the life value, whose life are we exactly talking about?
Life: A Dual Value
One often hears the statement “self preservation is the first law of nature.” Is that really true? Here is a surprising Humphrey story from the battle of Iwo Jima that sheds light on this question. As you read ask yourself, if you were the young platoon leader, would you think that life was a selfish value?
‘The Iwo Jima Story’ 2
On the sixth day of the battle for Iwo Jima, I took command of the only six (teenage) American Marines who were still left in a front-line rifle platoon that had more than 40 original members [Company F, 2d Battalion, 28th Marines].
I took over my platoon in a protected area. Men were walking around. They were an experienced, confident group who had been involved in the fighting at the top of Mount Suribachi.
One young man was especially noticeable, carrying an unusual Thompson submachine gun. He oozed self-confidence and independence. After chow that first evening, as he perfected his foxhole, he started declaring to himself in a loud voice: ‘I don’t volunteer for nothin’ else! Screw the Marine Corps! Screw Mount Suribachi! Screw everything except ol’ number one! That’s all that counts: gettin’ off this island alive! I don’t volunteer for nothin’!’
He shouted it so repeatedly that a couple of the other men picked it up. ‘Yeah! Right! We don’t volunteer for nothing!’ Suddenly it dawned on me that they were obliquely speaking to me, their new platoon leader. I felt the chill of having my leadership threatened.
The next morning, as we prepared to edge out of our positions, a message came down from higher headquarters. As luck would have it, I was being ordered to send a volunteer out onto a hill in front of us on a sure-death reconnaissance mission. Hesitant to ask for volunteers after what I had heard the night before, I announced that I, myself, would go. I made the excuse that, since I was new, I wanted to see the terrain. No sooner had I spoken, than the same Marine who had made the declarations the previous night said, ‘No, I’ll go, Lieutenant.’
‘What!’ I exclaimed, ‘You were the one last night saying that you never volunteer for anything!’
Almost sheepishly trying to cover his willingness to take my place, he answered, ‘Well, I just can’t trust any of you other jarheads on such a mission.’ Stunned, I realized that this Marine was saying, ‘My turn to die, Lieutenant—not yours.’
A Primer on Values, Morals, and Ethics
We use these stories (tie-ins) to inspire and activate moral behavior. “The Hunting Story” teaches the universal life value and human equality. “The Iwo Jima Story” teaches that the life value is a dual value—self and others—and that the best of us understand how to keep that balance.
At this point we will do what we do not do explicitly in the MCMAP training and tie-ins. We will clarify our understanding of the underlying philo-
sophy beneath the warrior ethic. We start with values.
Values. According to the dictionary, values are “things that have an intrinsic worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor,” or “principles, standards, or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable.” However, it is important to note that, although we may tend to think of a value as something good, virtually all values are morally relative—neutral, really—until they are qualified by asking, “How is it good?” or “Good to whom?” The “good” can sometimes be just a matter of opinion or taste, or driven by culture, religion, habit, circumstance, or environment, etc. Again, almost all values are relative. The exception, of course, is the life value. We all have that value, or we would not be alive.
Moral values. Moral values are relative values that protect life and support the dual life value of self and others. The great moral values, such as truth, freedom, charity, etc., have one thing in common. When they are functioning correctly, they are life protecting or life enhancing for all. But they are still relative values. Our relative moral values must be constantly examined to make sure that they are always performing their life-protecting mission. Even the Marine Corps core values require examination in this context. Courage can become foolish martyrdom, commitment can become irrational fanaticism, honor can become self-righteousness, conceit, and disrespect for others. Our enemies have their own standard of honor, they have courage, and they are surely committed. What sets us apart? Respect for the life value sets us apart from our enemies. When you kill protecting life it is still hard, but it is moral. Those who will kill anyone not observant of their narrow relative religious, ethnic, or criminal values—in other words, kill over relative values—are immoral. Our dedication to protecting the life value of self and others—all others—makes us different and moral.
Life is the “true north” of the moral compass. When we possess a calibrated compass and are clear as to why our actions are moral, we can more reliably navigate toward the ethical and away from actions that may be immoral and regrettable. Without trying to gloss over the very real fact that Marines do kill people, we can articulate clearly that Marines “kill to protect life.” The life value is the guiding bedrock principle that inspires us to be “honorable, courageous, and committed.”
Ethics. A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right is moral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing—even if it is hard or dangerous—is ethical.
Ethics are moral values in action. It starts in the schoolyard. Most everybody knows that the bully is wrong. That’s morality. But only a few will speak up to protect the one getting bullied by calling for a teacher. That’s ethical behavior. Even fewer will step in physically to actually protect the child being bullied. That’s the behavior of an ethical warrior.
It is important that we articulate why Marines must be ethical (must act morally). We have to be ethical because morality protects life. It is a lifestyle that is consistent with mankind’s universal value as articulated by our Founding Fathers—the life value. As Marines it is our duty to be protectors and defenders of that value and to perform the unique and difficult mission of taking the lives of those acting immorally (against life) as we protect the lives of innocent others.
Why Martial Arts?
Ethics are ultimately moral-physical. Moral people may want to step up and do the right thing, but they often lack the physical courage and ability. Martial arts give them the necessary skills and confidence. And that is why ethical warrior training includes—and must include—martial arts, especially for Marines.
The second aspect of MCMAP, the proper mindset—a combat mindset— is also important. Focused on our role of protectors, it allows us to overcome fear, hate, and other affective behaviors that would keep us from being the professional warriors that we are.
Finally, it is vital that the martial arts training be ongoing. An interesting challenge with ethical warriorship is that the clarification and activation parts tend to “wear off” without sustainment. We sustain our warrior ethic by continuous training. That means at least a few hours a week of the physical MCMAP training with the moral tie-ins.
It is true that the difference between right and wrong, morality and immorality, is not often a matter of life and death. Sometimes it is just a matter of getting a reasonable balance of concern between self and others in order to live a good life. Getting that good balance between self and others—and maintaining it through sustainment—is the art of living.
In Summary
At the MACE we strive to develop ethical warriors through a combination of physical protection techniques, values tie-ins, and good old-fashioned “set the example” leadership. Our “delivery mechanism” is the MCMAP training because this physical-moral formula works better than a purely intellectual approach. Yet there is a clear philosophy underlying the method. The concept of an ethical warrior is built upon the bedrock premise of the life value of self and others—all others—as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The life value is the guiding principle that inspires us to be “honorable, courageous, and committed.” The Marine Corps core values are moral values because they apply consistently—to both friend and foe. They apply even if the cultural or behavioral values of the people we encounter don’t always seem worthy of our high standards.
It is true that every choice we make, every situation we experience, is not necessarily a matter of life or death. The challenges and temptations of normal, everyday life can test our morality mightily—even when no one will die based upon what we do. Yet, as protectors and defenders of life, we have a philosophical perspective—a moral compass—that can guide us in every action and decision as we seek to maintain a healthy, balanced concern between self and others.
We want Marines to be shining examples of our Nation’s best values. Externally, America has a reputation for being the moral leaders of the world. That image can be polished—not with money and/or arms only—but with a clearer demonstration of our moral values. This may not sell to the hardcore fanatics. They may still have to be captured or killed, but it will sell to everybody else. The result will be greater respect and security for our Nation.
Notes
1. Humphrey, Robert L., Values for a New Millennium, Life Values Press, Maynardville, TN, 1992, pp. 48–51.
2. Ibid., pp. 145–146.
The Marine Corps Association & Foundation remembers the past and honors the present. Review the first one hundred years of MCA via historical photos and film clips of the organization that serves the men and women of the Marine Corps. Click 
Comments
Clarity
The clearest explanation of values, morals and ethics I have ever read.
A House Built on Sand
If this is the philosophical "foundation" upon which MCMAP is built, than "Houston, we have a problem." Having been through a number of MCMAP classes where they still include character building stories, I am happy to say that I don't believe this is the foundation for those who teach it. At the risk of offending a SME, and with all due respect to Dr. Humphrey, I must completely disagree with the logic of this foundation.
First of all, if life is the true North of the compass, I could argue the "goodness" of all sorts of evil activity. I realize I have just broken the first rule of the religion of moral relativism, but I believe my argument will hold-up. For instance, the holocaust. Except for the current leader of Iran, and some of his adherents, no one disputes the evil of what the Nazis did to an entire race during WWII; however, based upon the life value principle I could argue that it was justified and good. The purpose of the concentration camps was to remove what they viewed as an inferior race, to proliferate a better world. They were removing what they viewed as an evil, at the expense of innocent lives. It was, in their view, good for them and for the world.
Or take 9/11. Over 3000 innocent people were murdered by cowardly religious extremists, which most called evil in the days which followed. But based on this philosophy, it was an act of good for the sake of all mankind. Life will be better under the religious leadership of these zealots, or so we are told by those who supported the attack.
This philosophy is nothing more than a form of moral relativism, with a nebulous concept of life as the moral absolute--except that it doesn't. Not that life is nebulous or unimportant, on the contrary, but this definition of it is nebulous. There is no there, there to put your feet on. Furthermore, using the Core Values to justify this point? There is nothing courageous in throwing one's life away, nor honorable in conceit. And I have no idea what Mr. Hoban thinks would be considered "fanatical" in one's commitment to an ideology--though I have a feeling that I might be thrown into that definition based upon my words here.
The life value is not what the founding fathers identified as mankind's universal value--it was freedom. The Constitution states in the preamble that, among other things, it was established to secure the blessings of liberty. The Declaration of Independence? Life is one of three freedoms that the Founding Fathers believed were "unalienable", not the universal truth or moral. And where do these rights come from? From where does this universal value get its authority?
Honor, Courage, and Commitment as the Core Values of the Marine Corps by doctrine are rooted in Spiritual Readiness according to MCRP-6-12C. According to the Founding Fathers that spirituality is found in a creator--"...all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator..." from the Dec of Ind. True north on the moral compass, is one's faith. In the case of the Founding Fathers, that faith was in a deity. The ironic truth of this is that this deity gave us the freedom to say, "You are not the true north, I am." Or life is. Our Constitution protects that freedom for both civilians and military alike. But it does not change the fundamental truth that there is no moral relativism when it comes to the United States Marine Corps--if one’s oath to protect the Constitution was legitimate.
My favorite episode of King Fu as a kid was when a young girl and Caine were involved in the murder of another man. Caine had met the young girl on a stage coach and developed a fast friendship. When they arrived at their destination a man was murdered as Caine and the young girl disembarked. From the vantage point of the young girl it looked as if Caine had indeed killed the man, but in truth he had not. She knew that it was not in Caine's character to do such a thing, but he encouraged her that if that is what she saw than that was truth too. Her moral dilemma was not if Caine had killed the man, but that the truth appeared to be situational, in the eyes of the beholder. He could not have killed the man; therefore the truth had to be that he did not. So what am I to believe about truth?
The fundamental sickness of our current culture is the refusal to accept moral absolutes of any kind. It is destroying the fabric of our society at its roots. If this is the direction the Marine Corps is going, then in time it will cease to be the amazing fighting force that it is. This is not the vision of our Founding Fathers, and it is my hope that it is not the vision of our military leaders either.
Dear Cappy...
Thanks for reading my article. I was careful to make the point that I do not believe in moral relativism and that life is the universal value by which all other values can be qualified. Life, as a value, is also a dual value - we value self, and we value others. Moral relativists would argue (if they thought in these terms) that "others" meant "some" others - those that they thought were worthy. I argued that "some others" should be "all others." This is consistent, I believe, with the "inalienable right to life" found in the Declaration of Independence, and what is meant by "human equality." That perspective contrasts greatly with the Nazi's view and the view of the 9/11 attackers. They were moral relativists - they thought that life was relative - and their values (racial, religious) superseded the life value of some others. That is why they were, and are, immoral. They were (are) also fanatical about it. I doubt you are, in that sense: I do not think you would kill innocent others who did not share your particular religious views.
I did not say so explicitly, but I believe that "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" are moral values. But they are relative, in that they must be qualified by the universal life value (they must respect the lives of self and all others) before they can be considered truly moral. Freedom is not a universal value. No one should have the "freedom" to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And no one should pursue happiness at the direct expense of another. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were saying: Life as a universal value is primary - and all men are created equal. Therefore they should be free to pursue happiness - as long as they do not violate someone else's universal, inalienable right to life. But that is my own analysis.
You say: "This philosophy is nothing more than a form of moral relativism, with a nebulous concept of life as the moral absolute - except that it doesn't." I am not sure exactly what you meant by that (perhaps there was a type-o), but the Life Value is anything but nebulous. Either we are alive or we aren’t. And we all have the Life Value or we would not be alive. All other values proceed from that primary value.
Another value you mention is "truth." Truth, as a value, is also relative. Usually, it is moral. But not always. Ask me where Anne Frank is hiding, and I hope that I lie. Because, in that case a lie is moral (it protects life), and the truth does not.
You say: "The fundamental sickness of our current culture is the refusal to accept moral absolutes of any kind." I agree! I am saying that the value of life is that moral absolute. Every other value is relative, but can be judged as moral - or not - by whether it respects and protects life. Life of who? Self and others. Which others? All others.
Where did the life value come from? Why do we have it? Where did life, itself, come from? We really don't know. The Founding Fathers say that we are endowed with it by our Creator. And, that is where faith comes in. Some have faith; some don't - so it certainly isn't an absolute. If life, as I contend, is the "true north of the moral compass," it still may beg the question of why that is so - or, even, who or what made it so. I have faith in my answer. But my faith is not my true north - the object of my faith is.
Really, Chappy, I think we are basically on the same side. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss it.
Jack Hoban
jhoban@rgi.co.
Perversion of the Life Value
"no one disputes the evil of what the Nazis did to an entire race during WWII;however, based upon the life value principle I could argue that it was justified and good".
Cappy, there is no denying you could convince people that life is relative somehow, but making people believe things does not make them true. Dr Humphrey recognized that most people instinctively value their own life. No suprise. In his studies he also found humans and even animals value the lives of other living things. Now THAT is suprising. My point is that the Nazis you talk about were either unusual specimens or had rejected their natural instincts for whatever reason. It was not the Dual Life Value at work. You may justify it, but only by rejecting the DLV.
Ask yourself this, 'How do I know that the holocaust or other genocidal activities are bad?'. I hope you will find the answer relates to the fact that innocent life was ended without reason. The only valid reason to end life is to protect life. You could try to argue that the holocaust was somehow protecting life, but I don't fancy the chances of success.
And the MCMAP foundation, the Marines who join are the foundation, the intrinsic Dual Life Value they bring is part of the strong foundation. The stories clarify and activate what is already there, what has always been there. The Dual Life Value is always going to be a personal interpretation when making complex life or death decisions, but, that point of reference, just like North, tells you where you are and where you are heading.
In Defense of the DLV
Chappy,
With all due respect to you and your perspective, I think you and Mr. Hoban have more in common than you realize. But first, I’d like to clear up some misconceptions you based your argument upon. You essentially made three points: the Dual-Life Value’s definition of life is nebulous, the theory is nothing more than moral relativism, and “true north” on the moral compass must be divine faith.
The DLV’s definition of life is nebulous? The Dual-Life Value was conceived in war. Its articulator, Dr. Robert Humphrey, first observed it in the heroic actions of the men he commanded as a Marine rifle platoon lieutenant on Iwo Jima. He would come to recognize the balance and imbalance between the value’s ‘self and others’ concept, which holds we inherently value our life (self) and the lives of others. Reason acts as the fulcrum between the two, with the balance slightly in favor of the ‘others’ side as we may reason to give up our life in order to protect someone we love. Therefore, on its face we may say the “true north” of the DLV is ‘life,’ but actually it is recognition of the ‘life value’ inherent to all human beings and characterized as an ‘inalienable right to life.’
Humphrey himself said it best: "Obviously, it does not mean that people are not different in almost all measurable ways. You may be bigger than I am, smarter than I, better built, stronger, faster in mind and body, better looking, possess a more popular skin color, etc. Nonetheless, in one way, in a way that eclipses all others in controlling importance, I AM YOUR EQUAL: MY LIFE AND THE LIVES OF MY LOVED ONES ARE AS IMPORTANT TO ME AS YOURS ARE TO YOU." ("Values for a New Millennium," Robert L. Humphrey, pg 51, emphasis original).
This recognition and respect of the ‘life value’ is the DLV’s law, its foundational concept for one simple reason: life is not a relative value, it is an objective value - we either are alive or dead, and if we are dead, we no longer have need of a ‘life value.’ Aside from all the world’s relative values, contributed by all the cultures of the Earth, life is the single, universal, objective value every human being shares in common with every other human, no matter our standing, who we are or where we come from. There is nothing nebulous about it - we each have a life, and we value it, consciously or subconsciously, or we would not be alive.
Without even knowing it, most of us already adhere to both sides of the life value and live our lives accordingly, balancing out our singular wants, with the needs of others. However, some of us, and they are very few, do not. They still live according to the value, but in an unbalanced manner. For example, when the value is tipped toward the ‘self’ side, someone, like a serial killer, reasons to live only for themselves – selfishly - in a most violent way. And when the value is tipped toward the ‘others’ side, an individual can reason to live only for their group - self-lessly - like a suicide bomber. Thankfully, the people who carry out such violence are few in number compared to the rest of us.
Moral relativism? I will assume your charge that the DLV is morally relativistic is taken from the definition of moral relativism as the position that “truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people ... "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".” But the DLV’s reasoning counters this very way of thinking. Since life is an objective and universal value, shared by everyone alive, the DLV becomes an excellent judge of the morality of every relative value there is, by making ‘respect for the life value’ the qualifier between them.
For example, I like vanilla ice cream. But if I attack every vanilla ice cream disliker I meet, because I deem their ‘vanilla disliking value’ to be inferior to my ‘vanilla liking value,’ the DLV would rightfully judge my behavior as immoral. Because I choose to reason my own relative value – liking vanilla ice cream – as superior to their inherent life value, regardless of whatever relative value they may believe, my behavior is immoral. Remember, the singular law of the DLV notes that a particular relative, cultural value, tradition, or belief cannot supersede anyone else’s ’right’ to their inalienable life without being immoral.
By this understanding, we can recognize how your examples - the Nazis and the 9/11 hijackers - did not actually place life or a life value as the “true north” of their moral compass. In fact, they placed their own relative, cultural values as true north, values they reasoned superseded all of their victim’s life values. The moral relativism you write of did occur, but occurred in rejection of a universal life value - the Nazis claimed moral license to burn innocent Jews, because they reasoned Jews were their inferior and the hijackers claimed moral license, because they reasoned infidels were their inferior.
Moral relativism gets its “truth” from having no absolutes (I define it as ‘saying its okay, not to do the right thing’). But unlike relativism, the DLV’s method of observation and explanation of behavior is based on an objective absolute - the sanctity of life itself. It challenges us to clarify our perspective and behavior with respect for that sanctity, making us aware of the natural rights and duties that exist toward each other. When we understand these duties, we can voluntarily choose to place ourselves at greater risk – spiritually, emotionally, and in some cases, even physically - to protect the health, welfare, and lives of those around us. We can approach higher ethical standards in dealing with the least of us, including violent offenders, by intuiting respect for someone who is our equal, even when their behavior is not equal. For our protector professionals, law enforcement and military, this reasoning may also serve to better protect them from the psychological damage that occurs in having to kill a fellow human being, and there is great hope it may even lower rates of PTSD and suicide.
Divine faith as “true north?” Is divine faith a moral value? You may believe so, but so do radicalized Islamic terrorists. Their divine faith is used to justify the deaths of innocents all throughout the world. Which means divine faith is a relative value and must be qualified as moral or not. How do we qualify it as moral? When faith is life-protecting, it is moral, but when it endangers and takes life – like Islamic terrorists use their faith - it is immoral. You stated the Founders identified ‘freedom’ as mankind’s universal value. But does everyone value freedom? Is freedom truly a moral value? It can be, when it is operating in a life-protecting manner. But I can assure you, when it becomes unbalanced and too much freedom actually endangers life, like here on the West and South sides of Chicago, where children are dying by the carload because of the ‘freedom’ of gangs to operate illegally and violently, it is not moral. In fact, what we have seen is a rejection of freedom by their victims for the security of a ‘code of silence’ – a protective barricade from retribution, by those who fear the gangsters more than they trust the authorities.
Even the church’s four cardinal virtues are relative values: Prudence, Justice, Restraint or Temperance, Courage or Fortitude. Unless qualified by the ‘respect for the right of inalienable life,’ they cannot be truly moral. Even the core values of the Marine Corps - ‘honor, courage, and commitment’ - can be corrupted to make logic of evil – Al Qaeda can say their agents are honorable, courageous, and committed as well. But when we weigh their actions on the DLV scale, we find them immoral precisely because they believe their group’s beliefs, traditions, and culture to be of greater value than their victims intrinsic ‘life value.’ And what of those who choose not to believe in God or are agnostic in their beliefs? How does divine faith work for them? The brilliance of Humphrey’s theory is if you believe in God or do not believe in God, the reasoning is sound. Should divine faith simply preclude our ability to reason and deconstruct our own nature? On the contrary, even St. Thomas Aquinas applied Natural Law theory to reason why “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.” He didn’t just take God’s Word for it, he used God’s gift of reason to explain why.
The DLV does not address divine faith for one simple reason – it is not equipped to, so it neither supports faith nor dismisses it outright. But with studies showing humans hardwired to be moral creatures, even born that way – the work of sociologist Stephen Pinker, who argues against the notion of the ‘blank slate,’ or the surprising experiments at Yale University discovering a rudimentary morality in infants – it seems the DLV leaves the door open for discussion, discovery, and debate on where this hardwiring comes from. Personally, I believe it comes from God, but this is not a prerequisite for acceptance of the DLV. In fact, I would argue God is the inspiration of this design for one simple reason – why we value our lives defies explanation. The DLV is a rejection of moral and ethical relativism, standing in direct opposition to its amorality because it reasons our proclivity to value our life and the lives of those we love to be inherently moral. But it gives no answer as to why. On this, the DLV is silent and rightfully so.
Chappy, if you insist on opposing the DLV, do it because you find flaw in its reasoning. But before then, I urge you to allow for clearer understanding. I think you may find that faith and the DLV actually fit nicely together as they do not conflict in thought, word, or deed.
The best of luck to you.
Warmest regards,
Nico
Dear Chappy...
Thanks for reading my article. I was careful to make the point that I do not subsribe to moral relativism and that life is the universal value by which all other values can be qualified. Life, as a value, is also a dual value - we value self, and we value others. Moral relativists would argue (if they thought in these terms) that "others" meant "some others" - those that they thought were worthy. I argued that "some others" should be "all others." This is consistent, I believe, with the "inalienable right to life" and "human equality" concepts found in the Declaration of Independence. That perspective contrasts greatly with the Nazi's view and the view of the 9/11 attackers. They were moral relativists - they thought that the life value was relative - and their values (racial, religious) superseded the life value of some others. That is why they were, and are, immoral. They were (are) also fanatical about it. I doubt you are, in that sense; I do not think you would kill innocent others who did not share your particular religious views.
I did not say so explicitly, but I believe that "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" are moral values. But they are relative, in that they must be qualified by the universal life value (they must respect the lives of self and all others) before they can be considered truly moral. Freedom is not a universal value. People often choose security over freedom. No one should have the "freedom" to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, either, because life trumps freedom. And no one should pursue happiness at the direct expense of another. Life as a universal value is primary - and all men are created equal. Therefore they should be free to pursue happiness - as long as they do not violate someone else's universal, inalienable right to life. I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant, but that is my own analysis.
You say: "This philosophy is nothing more than a form of moral relativism, with a nebulous concept of life as the moral absolute - except that it doesn't." I am not sure exactly what you meant by that (perhaps there was a type-o), but the Life Value is anything but nebulous. Either we are alive or we aren’t. And we all have the Life Value or we would not be alive. All other values proceed from that primary value.
Another value you mention is "truth." Truth, as a value, is also relative. Usually, it is moral. But not always. Ask me where Anne Frank is hiding, and I hope that I lie. Because, in that case a lie is moral (it protects life), and the truth is not.
You say: "The fundamental sickness of our current culture is the refusal to accept moral absolutes of any kind." I agree! I am saying that the value of life is that moral absolute. Every other value is relative, but can be judged as moral - or not - by whether it respects and protects life. Life of who? Self and others. Which others? All others.
Where did the life value come from? Why do we have it? Where did life, itself, come from? We really don't know. The Founding Fathers say that we are endowed with it by our Creator. And, that is where faith comes in. Some have faith; some don't - so it certainly isn't an absolute. If life, as I contend, is the "true north of the moral compass," it still may beg the question of why that is so - or, even, who or what made it so. I have faith in my answer. But my faith is not my true north - the object of my faith (and the entity who put it there) is.
Really, Chappy, I think we are basically on the same side. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss it.
Jack Hoban
jhoban@rgi.co
Faith and the Life Value - not mutually exclusive.
Chappy,
I know exactly how you feel. I had some similar concerns and I've seen many with the same concerns over the years. However, I think that much like Mr. Hoban mentions, you might agree with more than you think. No one is trying to replace anyone's faith here. And I would argue that truth is truth (though truth isn't always valued by everyone the same); I am definitely not a moral relativist or a religious one.
But I can also say that there is nothing at odds with the Christian worldview here, and no one has said that it is the "end all, be all" philosophy. Instead, try to look at it as another stepping stone or tool in the backpack. A few above me have already replied with some very good answers, but given your signature, I'm guessing you're a Navy Chaplain. Since I'm one, too, I thought you might like a perspective of someone of likely similar background.
As I've thought through a few of the responses to the Life Value, particularly yours, I tried to think of a few examples that illustrate the commonalities that exist.
If person A says "murder is wrong" and person B says "murder is wrong" then an observer would probably state that "they agree." But what if person A's reasoning is "Because murder is against the law" and person B's reasoning is "Because it is against the Ten Commandments/Scripture." Does their reasoning make their first statement any less agreeable? Of course not. Do they automatically disagree simply because their reasoning is different? I don't think that's necessarily the case, either.
Since you brought the Christianity Worldview into the discussion, I'll build on a parable that you're familiar with... the wise and the foolish builder, as they build their houses - great since you reference it with your title. Consider the Live Value to be the foundation of the house (as in, part of the house) and the Christian worldview to be the foundation under the house... rock or sand (as in, what the house is built on).
I would say that the Life Value is present in everyone because, well, that's how God made us. What if the following statement was made: "Murder is wrong because the Life Value says so... because God imprinted His law (the Life Value) on the hearts of all men." Such a statement is completely in line with the discussion, the Christian worldview, etc.
The Life Value is a solid and reasonable view of Natural Law. It's also in keeping with a Christian Worldview (because, I would say, God would not codify something in Nature that is at odds with His Nature). If you state "God wrote His law on the hearts of all men" and if you state "No greater love has any man than that he lay down his life for another" and if you say "love your neighbor as yourself..." then simply ask how do any of those beliefs or views become "at odds" with a stated philosophy of Natural Law viewpoint that says, "Valuing, protecting and defending Life is so important that it is the standard to judge all other values if for no other reason than it is a prerequisite to all other values"? Nico points out a great question along these lines: "Should divine faith simply preclude our ability to reason and deconstruct our own nature?"
In fact, is there any example of a Life Value application that actually disagrees with a Christian Worldview? I've yet to find one. Mind you, I do not agree with everything Dr. Humphrey states regarding Natural Law and the Life Value, but I also don't agree with everything that "people of faith" state about their beliefs and reasoning, either.
Now, as I read your comments, the following thoughts surface.
You mentioned the Holocaust. That's ironic since it's a prime example of the validity of the Life Value in that it completely goes against it. Would someone argue that the Nazis were "Protecting all life... even the life of their enemies?" I doubt it.
Just like if someone brought up the Crusades and religion... most would argue that they are not a good example of Religion/faith as true north, either. In fact, the reason they were not valid in a Christian context is because A) they were not in keeping with Jesus' actual teachings and B) a lot of people needlessly died (there's a reference to life in that) which, again, was not in keeping with Jesus' teaching.
You mentioned 9/11. Again, that's an example of what the Life Value is NOT about. It's also a good example of "religious rooted" (and faith as one's true north) beliefs gone wrong. Life is not nebulous. It is a prerequisite. It is intrinsic. Furthurmore, the Core Values don't have to be used to justify it... however, the Life value is probably the only solid justification one can find for the Core Values. You say there is nothing courageous in "throwing one's life away" and I agree. And as for what is "fanatical" I don't think Mr. Hoban would classify you as one because, well, you're not killing anyone for simply disagreeing with you like THEY are. I think that's fanatical, and I think you'd agree.
The Founding Fathers and Freedom: yes, you make an excellent point. But anyone who has studied the philosophy of Freedom will be quick to point out that freedom is not the absolute with which to judge (already addressed by some above). If I were completely free, I could simply do what I want without regard to the affect it has on others. I could kill someone and not face consequences... that's true "freedom." But I don't think anyone would be a proponent of that... and neither would the Founding Fathers.
Sidebar: While we discuss the Founding Fathers, I think a good case could be made that they talked a great deal about religious freedom and yet they expected a Christian foundation for the the Nation they founded. But our Country no longer follows that "intent" because "freedom" overcame original intent. Just a note of caution on that topic. The same as in the courtroom... law professionals will happily explain that "original intent" of the law is not what matters... only "current interpretation."
On the Declaration of Independence, yes, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned. But can you have liberty without life? Happiness without life? Obviously not.
Honor, Courage and commitment - Spiritual readiness... got it. But that means a lot of things to a lot of different people and you would be hard pressed to force a creator theory on everyone in the Marine Corps. In fact, you would most likely be removed from the system because it would be considered unacceptable.
I would raise, also, an interesting question that directly pertains to the statement that "faith" should be the true north on the moral compass. Really? So which faith? What determines if that faith is morally correct? Or does the terrorist that does what he does because of his "faith" deserve credit for following his compass? What if one's faith imposes itself in a negative manner on innocents? Would one argue that all faith is equal? Or simply the faith of thoses who's faith agrees with yours?
A bit more on that statement that "True north on the moral compass is one's faith." I think the leaders of 9/11 would make a similar statement. Leaders of the Crusade would make a similar statement. I'm not going to make that statement UNLESS the "faith" one is talking about is qualified. The Founding Fathers didn't qualify Christianity as that faith because they assumed it was obvious. Yet look at what has happened.
You mention a Diety that gives us the freedom to say "You are not true north, I am." That assumes that one's faith points to THAT particular Diety (which, btw, mine does), but it also doesn't take into account other faiths have different dieties (that don't allow for such, um, "liberty"), and some have no diety, etc. So how far are you willing to pursue that line of reasoning? I would state that, not simply"faith" or even Spirituality, but specifically the Christian faith. But that's me, and the simple fact of the matter is that I can't do that in our country of "freedom" from an authoritative and teaching perspective (which is why MCRP-6-12C mentions "spirituality" and not faith and not a specific faith... it's being politically correct). In a Bible Study? Yes. In a Command capacity or teaching environment? No.
I think Jack (who is far more of a philosopher than he lets on) summed it up extremely well: But my faith is not my true north - the object of my faith is." Amen! However, I'm also willing to state that "Life is a univeral value" because, well, A) it aligns with Scripture (my first few paragraphs) and B) no one has shown me something contrary... and I've been teaching it as a foundational ethics course for Sailors, Marines, etc. for about five years now.
And you're right... there is no room for moral relativism in the military. But if you say "Honor, Courage and Commitment" are core values, one simply has to ask, "why?" to gum up the works. What makes our's right and the enemy's wrong? The only way to answer WHY they are good values is to either bring a specific faith into it (which you cannot do in uniform at an official level) or you have to find a common truth you can agree on, which in this case is Life. Because your faith aligns with it.
As for Kung Fu, Caine was the kind of guy that protected life. He didn't needlessly take it. Maybe he went through MCMAP, I don't know, but I'd call him an "Ethical Warrior" any day.
Truth isn't in the eye of the beholder... I agree. However, I do know that the Life Value isn't morally relative, either. I have yet to see an example where it is is made so when properly applied. What if all our Marines valued life like Caine to the point that the world assumed the good of every incident? Imagine the possibility.
Yes, moral relativism is a sickness of our society. But even honor, courage and commitment can be made morally relative. Even truth (as a value of people) can be made morally relative. E.g., if someone holds a gun to your head and demands to know where your family is so they can kill them, you're value of truth changes - it isn't primary, is it?. Now, to be clear... that doesn't mean absolute truth doesn't exist (because it does!). It just means that a person's value of truth changes.
But as for the direction of the Marine Corps... are you really saying you don't want Marines who value the lives of themselves and those they are responsible for above all? You don't want protectors and defenders of life? You don't want Marines who will risk their own lives in order to save the life of even an enemy, if they can (in accordance with their Rules of Engagement) because their reason is that they value all life because all men are created equal?
A few things to think about.
Very respectfully,
Kermit Jones, Jr.
kermitjr_at_gmail.com
I'm putting my name on this because I'm sincerely interested in continuing this conversation offline, if you like.
The "Troops" Perspective...
Captain Hoban, Cappy, et al,
I read this thread, intrigued with what the "higher ups" thought about the Warrior Ethos vs. the Grunts in the field and those (like me) who were in garrison, having to implement MCMAP (or in my case when I still served, a combo of L.I.N.E. and generic "defensive tactics" as an MP at Quantico). I also have somewhat of a unique perspective when it comes to using "traditional martial arts" in a law enforcement and military vein as one of my "contemporaries" is Colonel George Bristol (who was a fellow student when he was a Captain). The "philisophy" he and others who ultimately developed what is now MCMAP was and in my opinion IS a constantly developing one with one central premise: having the physical and moral skills necessary to properly defend America and American interests using the concept of "One Mind Any Weapon."
Upon speaking with MANY ranked MCMAP practitioners at Quantico, Twentynine Palms, various detachments across the U.S. and those who have trained and fought in theater I've come to one conclusion: there is a fundamental disconnect between what the "higher ups" are hoping for and what is "real" in the field. This is not a bad thing however, since the goal is actually still being achieved; Marine Warriors are killing the enemy but FEWER noncombatants than the other services. I personally believe that this has only a small amount to do with the "ethos" training as much as instilling the Ethos itself, imbuing each Marine starting in Basic Training with the concepts of Honor, Courage and Commitment along with the basic combat survival skills necessary to have CONFIDENCE in the aforementioned concepts.
There is a sense of pride instilled in every Marine that permeates the uniform, the formation and even the theater in which a Marine operates. It's seen when he or she is on leave, when they stand post or even on a date. It is a cocky yet confident "looking glass" that allows the outsider to see the "Ideal of America." Because of that, there is a subconscious need for that Marine to "be better" and "do better" than his fellow servicemember from the Army, Navy, Air Force... a need to be the absolute best at his craft. There is also one more primal need that in my humble opinion supercedes anything taught in what I still believe is necessary (if only to imbue the Marine with the necessary "restrictions" mandated by human decency and the Law of War): that need is "justification." Without a sense of "justification" the Marine has no mission in his mind and begins to doubt that mission and quite frankly NO MARINE I'VE EVER SERVED WITH has gone without doubt, regardless of his or her level of "Gung Ho."
I know that this flies in the face of nearly everything taught to Officers of The Corps, but I'm telling you what I've seen both as a Marine and as a civilian contractor working with Marines. The Private, PFC, Lance Corporal... the literal backbone of the Combat Elements of the Corps... they could as one told me "give a (explicative) about ethics" but the one that told me that has also restrained himself (and others) in the "heat of battle" to keep himself and his fellow Marines on the "right side of the Angels." Why is that? Is that because in some "school circle" someone said to do that? NO! It's is because there IS an inherent sense of "right and wrong" that the Marine comes to the Corps with - that's in many ways what drew them to the Corps in the first place - that and damn good commercials!
Forgive my ramblings and please let me conclude with this: for those O3's and above who care (in my opinion, O2's and below are still learning the fundamentals of their craft) please talk to your troops - off the record and with the rank off once in a while. Find out what THEIR "ethos" is. THAT will make the "Ethos Training" worthwhile vs. just spouting out something off of the Commandant's Reading List.
Regards,
Carlos Estrella
Come On Up, The Air is Fine!
Reminds me of an old joke about a tall man and a short man. The short man says to the taller, 'Hey, how's the air up there.' The taller man let a fart rip and said, 'A hell of a lot better than the air down there!' My point is, perspective and relational positioning to an 'objective' or 'concept' will undoubtedly change with time, space, and relative distance. It seems to me, most senior leaders presume Marines are unethical and immoral when clearly this is not the case. Your point above demonstrates a LCpl's words are not necessarily his actions. I've witnessed the same dialectical bravado and humbleness in Iraq during countless 'Shoot/Don't Shoot' encounters, and as Marines struggled with morality, ethics, God, country, self, and so on. As rapidly as we're fielding newly minted Marines into combat one cannot with any reasonable surity claim MCMAP or other 'school circle' training is the only influence in a young Marine's life. You are absolutely spot on advocating we explore the new 'ethos' that will 'bring us down on the right side of Angels.' Bravo Zulu, Marine!
One team one fight...Semper Fidelis!
Ruben Castillo
Gunnery Sergeant, Fleet Marine Corps Reserve
Disabled and OIF Marine Veteran
Un-orthadox Perspective
Faith or Life being the value at question. Life is a constant value we all share, that in itself can not be disputed. Faith, however, has much to be disputed. People of differant faith have differant values associated with their respective faith. If faith, being guidence from the devine, please explain where an athiest gets guidence.
lets look at a murderer. seems to place no value on the life of his/her victims. Yet when placed into the position where said murder must answer for the crimes committed against humanity, the plee for mercy or lieniency is most often there. we see a value on the self, the murderers own life. Where is the faith?
Lets look at another group. You are part of a fire team in enemy territory on foot patrol.your team receives contact from the enemy. The fire team dispatches the enemy but captures one enemy alive. You can not take prisoners for various reasons I may not discuss. Here is the question: do you kill the enemy captive or let him go?
some will say it is in-humane to kill him, or that killing him at this point would be murder. It goes against the faith, thou shall not murder.
the other side of it is, if you let him go, he locates the nearest enemy combatants with the intel he gathered from his brief captivity. what you thaught was the right thing to do has now endangered the life of you and your team. The enemy patrol locates you and your team and set an ambush that you never make it out of.
acourding to the social norms and the rules of engagement, killing him would be considered murder. Letting him go became a threat to the life of you and your team. How many more did that enemy patrol go on to kill?
You may think that is a far fetched scenerio, tell that to Marcus Latrell (author of "The Lone Survivor"). The captive in real life was actually a goat hearder and the team did not receive contact until the goat hearder notified the the hundred plus enemy latrell's team was reporting on.
If they had killed the captive, they may still be alive, the enemy dispatched and an unknown number of inocent lives may have been saved. The sensitivity to our rules, faith, how we are told to think or act, how we are raised in life, drive us to our decisions. In other words, what we "know". The feeling in the situation was ignored and was costly. We know better than we feel (social driven acceptance). "You must do what you feel is right" (feel it).
Behavior is learned, faith is learned, (cognitive). Honor courage and committment within the life values can, in a point of view, be learned, but I believe are instilled in us at birth. We all posses the virtues contained within the life value, the learned "behavior" dictated to us by our peers and social norms are where things become confusing for most.
Respect all that is around you, take only what you need, do right by others, when threatened by an adversary, overcome your socialy dictated fear, find your courage, defeat your enemy and life shall flourish without tyranny.
The value of faith is something we believe in, and we all see, believe, experience, understand, want, need, accept things..etc, differently than others. Yet the value of life is something that we feal and is and always will be, CONSTANT.
Faith has too many variables to be a constant. If you are still not convinced on view points alone, go to Northern Ireland and advertise being a Protestant and you think Catholics are wrong.
Murdering people over the burning of a book, threatening entire cultures for the same, yet condone attacks on churches, religous figures, and entire communities over faith. extremists that do these sort of things have no apparent value on life. It is all on faith. a suicide bomber in a market place is a great example. But they believe that is their path to paradise, and their families will be taken care of for their sacrifice. Social norms for the culture. As Jack had said, Honor, Committment, and Courage can easily be distorted. Even though the life value of self can not easily be seen, the value for the lives of the family is obvious. Faith HAS distorted the life values.
Life is TRUE and can not be argued.
Find true north, if you are on the magnetic path(off course with most of society) you will end up elsewhere than where you really desire to be.
To all you Marines out there..."SEMPER FI", keep going
"Jethro"
Jason Hoppes
Good philosophy,.
I am not a Marine, so forgive me for this intrusion. I have to say what makes this philosophy by Mr. Hoban and his Teacher strong is a fact that: have you give a man some food, a little care, drop in a girl if he needs one and watch him tell you much more and will be much more compliant than if you interrogate him, treating him like a piece of meat with some information. I am sure of that, because it works like that in life under conditions that are much more civil and seemingly harmless, but no less dangerous to the ego. I think one may see a direct profit in the fact that he is not in a rush to attack his enemies and devastate them, but actually understands their cultural background, "air that they breath" so to speak. Isn't this one of the lessons of this article? Thank you,
Ekehutz,
New York.
Morals vs ethics
I like the article and the discussion, but have one bone to pick. Morals can be relative to a religion, culture, society, etc. Ethics on the other hand are universal ideals that lead to the betterment of the human species - do unto others as you would have them do unto you; the universal human rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence; and yes, even genocide is ethically wrong regardless of whether one's morals can justify it. Morals can be lent to the relativism that Chappy mentions, but ethics should be above reproach, though they still need to be applied and defined in a given situation. Since the article had "Ethical" in the title, I assumed the author would make this distinction when mentioning morals - this assumption was wrong. Defining terms properly is essential to having a useful discussion, and I think these definitions could help clear it up.
Jesse B.
USMC Active
Post new comment