What is a Life Worth?

©Blaine Howard
881 Words

The metaphysical or abstract is alien to the pervading national spirit of the United States. Yet virtually no one will deny that his or her life is steered by firm convictions about what is valuable and to be cherished, and a sort of ranking of these goods.

With this in mind, and not to philosophize, Is there a foreign policy adventure that is fair exchange for a human life, to be more specific, a service man or woman’s life? Though a recruit may sign over his or her fate to the control of the military because of economic exigency, the promise of college scholarships, patriotism, thrill seeking or effective recruiting, his or her life should command as high a degree of respect as any civilian’s.

Implicit in the contract an enlistee makes with the government is the assumption that he or she may face danger, wounding, maiming, or even death, but only when no other means will effectively keep America and Americans safe and free. Such conditions are:

When we are under attack or being blackmailed against a credible threat of attack,

When a Beelzebub such as Hitler is, through words and
actions engaged in attempting to take over the world.

When we suffer a terrorist attack, and know who carried it out and where they might be found.

In such cases, those who have ostensibly freely chosen the military life, can in good conscience be called upon to risk great pain and suffering and/or having their (earthly at least) potential abruptly end. We can morally allow these unimaginably great sacrifices because we need military personnel and their resources to act as our proxies in an unavoidable fight for our life and liberty. They are in a real sense fighting for us, in our stead. If we the citizenry were capable of carrying out these tasks, there would be no need of a military.

Enlistees aren’t jingoists who care less for life and limb than for American glory. They are seekers for a path to solvency, career enabling education and a foothold on the American Dream. They do not aspire to serve as mercenaries to egoistic fulfillment. (As a matter of fact, according to the YATS ( youth attitude tracking study) survey of reasons for entering military service covering the years from 1996-1999, 66% of men and 65% of women cited money for education or job training as motivations while only 17% of men and 13% of women gave duty to country and 3% of men and 2% of women gave national defense as reasons.)

The credo "that government governs best which governs least", has long been a staple of conservative ideology. According to this ideology, providing for the common defense is one of the few legitimate missions of government.

It is rational to agree that when our lives or freedom to govern ourselves are truly in danger, even the preciousness of soldiers’ lives isn’t equal to the need to dispatch young able-bodied people to defend us.

But the use of the lives of our military personnel in order to further a personal geopolitical philosophy— this not only exceeds and violates the conservative code of minimalist government in an immoral manner, but encumbers military personnel with a mission they did not sign on to undertake.

Neither our political leaders nor anyone else are entitled to treat any citizens this way. Humans are not dolls whose existence can be left to depend on the caprice of young children at play. Pieces "killed" on a chess board can be propped up to fight again in innumerable other games. But once a mortal is dead no such retraction is possible.

An American at the age of the average member of our armed forces can reasonably look forward to another 438,000 of life. Hours in which to develop and savor loving and friendly relationships, hours in which friends and loved ones could derive the benefits of their company, hours in which to contribute to and enjoy the cultural, artistic and intellectual wealth of our country.

No flattering encomia or rituals honoring the military who die in unnecessary wars can compensate for this cavalier treatment of G-d’s greatest gift, or for the evisceration of the lives of family and friends of the individual whose life has been squandered. These honors only serve to rationalize these unjustifiable deaths, placing them into the natural flow of regrettable but normal social phenomena.

Elementary moral principals demands that we stop sending troops into harm’s way to secure interests of our political and economic leaders masked as imminent threats to the nation’s survival.

Of course, we could establish, by national referendum for instance, other frameworks for using the lives of military personnel. Then, fairness would demand that all individuals on the verge of enlisting be informed that they will be serving (and perhaps dying) as mercenaries at the pleasure of the president.

Then, the president can "legitimately" claim carte blanche over the disposition of our armed forces. Elementary courtesy would dictate that military recruits be informed before they sign up, that these conditions now officially obtain.

Potential recruits could then make the vital decision of whether to risk their lives based on an honest representation of the government’s valuation of them. Perhaps some will decide that a partial college scholarship is worth the prospect of being killed on behalf of a political ideology or political pride. Perhaps, however, some will not.