Only answer this question set after you've read Chapter Nine.
Frankie observes that even though an "increased number of wounded" are coming into the hospital, the U.S. Defense Department's daily independent newspaper, Stars and Stripes, "published rah-rah-America-is-winning-the-war articles every week" (92). Frankie's mother, meanwhile, tells Frankie that an "International War Crimes Tribunal found the U.S. guilty of bombing civilian targets, included schools--SCHOOLS, Frankie!--and churches and even a leper colony" (96). After encountering an orphan whose South Vietnamese village had been bombed, presumably by Americans, Frankie observes "War was one thing; bombing villages full of women and children was something else. God knew there were no stories about it in the Stars and Stripes. Why weren't they reporting the truth?" (103).
Presumably, Stars and Stripes would not want to publish articles that might demoralize the troops in the field.
If you suspected that publishing bad news might have a palpably negative effect on the morale of your country, your workplace, your school, or even your family, would you consider keeping it quiet?
Given that withholding information is not the same thing as lying, shouldn't you always consider withholding information if you think the effect of sharing it would be harmful?
At what point is it disloyal or unpatriotic for a U.S. citizen to write or publish things that expose or criticize the shortcomings of the United States?
When is it disloyal or unpatriotic for an instructor to ask their students to study such shortcomings?
If an orphanage or a leper colony is bombed by mistake, does that reduce the need to criticize it?
Question 1 I think it depends on the news. I certainly wouldn't withhold information because it might make people feel bad. There are things in life that aren't pretty. Bad things happen all around. If we want things to be better, then we need to actually talk about it. Now, if it is something demoralizing and personal about someone's private life, that is definitely a different story. They are entitled to publish that news themself.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2 I know in this question it says that withholding information is not the same thing as lying, but I would almost argue that it is in many cases. I would call it lying by omission. For example, previously in the book when Jamie flirts with Frankie and doesn't have a wedding ring. He never plans on mentioning being married. One could argue he never lied, but he withheld the information. He lied by omission. Now, moving to the second part of this question, this depends on circumstance. If you're withholding whether or not you think someone's dress looks silly to you. Or if you think that someone has a bad haircut, then that information is not helpful and can hurt someone's feelings. However, in cases where information will hurt someone's feelings but is still important it doesn't matter. You still need to tell them. You can make excuses to yourself over and over, but in the end you're protecting your own feelings, not theirs.
Question 3 The only point in which it's unpatriotic, to me, is when there's no benefit to it. I think it's beneficial to talk about our shortcomings as a nation. To crack down on any corruption or injustice. That's what I would even consider our responsibility. I think disloyalty is only when you cross the line of putting the country in actual danger by what you share.
Question 4 It's never disloyal or unpatriotic for an instructor to ask students to study a topic. The whole point of school is to learn. You may not even agree with the topics you are learning about. The instructor may not either. School is meant to expose you to a wide variety of topics. That's the whole point.
Question 5 I don't think something that big can be excused so easily by calling it a “mistake.” We still need to scrutinize these events in history. We need to ask how they happened and what led to them occurring, otherwise they are doomed to happen again. It's not like someone spilled some milk, innocent lives were lost. Not just that, but innocent lives on the side of our ally. Even some mistakes need to be criticized and learned from. I'll use my field as an example. In music, we do what is called “constructive criticism.” We criticize the mistakes made for the sake of learning from them. Obviously it's a completely different topic, but still a case where mistakes are looked at and criticized. We also need to keep in mind how we criticize things too. Are we harsh? Do we keep an open mind? Do we tear everything apart? Or are we gentle with our criticisms? How we go about things matters.
Question 1. If I knew that bad news would negatively impact the morale of my men, I think that I would personally keep that news under wraps. The power of belief is such a powerful thing, if you simply believe you can do something, it becomes orders of magnitude easier to accomplish. If my men didn’t know of something that would harm their morale, it would keep them working the best that they could. It could also help them focus on whatever task they had at hand instead of the things happening on a bigger scale that they may not have as much influence over.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2. I would argue that withholding information is a form of lying, as it is in the American court system through telling the whole truth, but I do agree that, in most scenarios, it would be in your best interest to withhold information to preserve morale. While belief is a powerful tool, the opposite is also true. If someone believes that they are unable to do something, that task becomes significantly more difficult. As I am a runner, let me use running as an example. If you think you can run for a mile straight without stopping, it is not very hard to do so. If you think you cannot do it, your mind will think of a myriad of reasons to stop partway through. This same concept applies here, if your men don’t believe that they are really helping, their work will severely suffer.
Question 3. I think the line of constructive criticism and disloyalty comes from the reason in which both parties are acting. In the Vietnam War, America acted to prevent the spread of communism, a system of government that has proven to be flawed and detrimental to people living in it, I think that most people would argue in favor of that being a noble cause. While their cause was noble, some of their actions were not, which is where the press can come in. The press can report on actions that are less than noble, not to say that America shouldn’t be fighting against communism, but to point out that there is a better and less brutal way to do so.
Question 4. I don’t believe there is any situation where it is disloyal to study the shortcomings and poor decisions of one’s own country. One of the main benefits of studying history is to help prevent our future leaders from making the same mistakes of those who came before us. If we study the shortcomings of previous leaders, we can understand not only what they did wrong, but why they did what they did and why exactly it was wrong. If a leader knows what action is wrong, why it is wrong, and can see what other options they have available, they will be able to make a more informed, and most likely better decision.
Question 5. I believe that the line of honest mistakes and needless endangerment of lives lies with information. If the people who ordered a bombing run that destroyed a village truly had no idea that it was there, there should be some amount of lenience given to them. If they knew that there was a village in an area that was planned for bombing and they still decided to go through with it, that is inexcusable and should receive absolutely zero lenience against criticism. This also applies to lower ranked officers in contact with the officer planning bombing runs. If they know of a village that the lead officer does not know about, they should inform that officer of this information so they can call off the bombing run. If a lower officer knows of a village and does nothing, then they would be to blame for its destruction and the lives lost in the bombing run.
Question 1: I think right now, I'd say I would make information available to the public. However, if I were in a leadership position over the country, I would have to think of the greater good for the country. The war in Vietnam was to stop communism, if people did not support that war then communism may have spread to other countries in Asia and Europe. I think that from a leadership position I would have to weigh the consequences of sharing critical information before I made a decision.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: I think the simple answer is yes. I think it would be better to not tell someone or a group of people something and avoid the consequences. While withholding is not technically lying, I think it is still just as bad. However, both can be used in good ways. If you have a negative opinion on someone's appearance, I think it would definitely be better to not say anything rather to voice your opinion. It is somewhat of a two-way street. It would definitely depend on the person I'm withholding information from and the magnitude of the information.
Question 3: I think that the point criticism becomes unpatriotic is when it becomes less about trying to improve the country, and more about spreading hate. The United States today is torn apart by politics. You often see both sides withholding information about their own faults and bringing light to the other side's. I think that criticism needs to stay focused on the actions and less about the people.
Question 4: I don't think it is unpatriotic or disloyal at all for an instructor to ask their student to study the shortcomings of a country. I think the studies need to stay focused on the errors and no hatred needs to be spread. I believe shortcomings should be studied to find the causes and stop them from happening again.
Question 5: I think it increases the need to criticize it. In today's military, civilians are not targeted often. I think that if an orphanage or a leper colony were to be bombed it would be almost impossible to call it a mistake. With all of the information and surveillance available, there would be almost no way to say it was a mistake. I think it would, and should cause an outrage.
Question 1: I think that I would either go ahead and tell people, or at least hold off on telling the demoralizing truths. I would not completely withhold the information. However, if I were coming from a position of leadership especially over the troops, depending on the information and how I thought it would be perceived to my men and women I would might wait to tell them.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: I think that in most cases it is all circumstantial. In this situation it could very well be life or death so withholding the information, in my opinion, is the better option. If it were information that could possibly be harmful to an individual emotionally but is important, I feel that it is their right to know.
Question 3: I think that the point in which criticism passes the line of patriotism is when the person spreading the information is no loner spreading the information to inform the public, but to persuade towards their perspective and to hate on the country.
Question 4: No, when its something that extreme you cant reduce the criticism because the person was given the power to end lives and was careless enough to do what they did without taking into account the innocent lives. What they did, whether it was on accident or not, cant be reversed and consequences are something they have to deal with.
I forgot to change the publisher name from anonymous to my name whoops.
DeleteQ2: Given that withholding information is not the same thing as lying, shouldn't you always consider withholding information if you think the effect of sharing it would be harmful?
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly not a controversial opinion that lying is conducive to generating morally ambiguous scenarios. Within most moral frameworks, it is ubiquitously understood to carry some level of ethical transgression. However, a far greater number of individuals would defend the idea of "withholding information” or omitting certain facts under the pretense that it may qualify as morally justifiable. Often, a compelling scenario involves preventing physical or emotional harm to another individual. For instance, consider the following scenario.
Scenario:
At a Vietnam field hospital, a nurse triages casualties arriving on multiple MEDEVAC flights. Several are critically injured and not expected to survive, so following MASCAL and triage protocol, the nurse applies a black “EXPECTANT” triage tag and moves them to the comfort-care area. One of these young men asks whether he is going to be okay, and the nurse, who feels profound sorrow for the young man in his final moments, tells him, “you’re in good hands; the team is with you,” withholding the knowledge that he will die shortly.
This scenario offers a plausible narrative of how withholding information might be morally defensible, in large part because the nurse is not lying. However, if we expand on this hypothetical, without changing details, we can see how the ethical assessment might change.
Scenario continued:
After the young man passes from his injuries, another soldier enters the expectant ward, scanning the men’s faces, and moves swiftly to the side of the deceased individual. Upon seeing his comrade’s lifeless face, he staggers, steadies himself, and collects his words. He explains they had been friends before the war and served in the same platoon. His friend, a newlywed with a child at home, had told him that if he were ever in his final hours, he wanted to send one last message to his family, so the news of his death would not come from a military officer knocking on their doorstep. The soldier is devastated that he had not been notified and could not fulfill his promise; what made it more crushing was that he was only 100 yards away, offloading other incoming MEDVACS.
We see that in light of new information, the ethical dilemma changes considerably. In phase 1 of the hypothetical, withholding his expectant status seemed morally permissible. Why compound his suffering in his final moments? But in doing so, the decision prevents him from informing the nurse of his final wish: to memorialize a message to his family.
The aforementioned situations exemplify my thesis to the question of “how heavily should one consider withholding information when sharing could cause harm.” Of course, it is unlikely any of us will find ourselves in Vietnam with a situation remotely comparable to this one (I simply imagined a scenario relevant to the novel), but we can extend its implications beyond the borders of the hypothetical. It tells us an important message: humans are imperfect creatures with limited knowledge, unable to predict all variables in a given scenario. When faced with a situation where withholding information seems most appropriate, we assume this is within the context of our knowledge. Like the nurse in Vietnam, however, once we are given additional insight, the moral calculus can be altered. Thus, when faced with a situation where we must consider withholding information, we must strive toward understanding and considering all aspects that may arise. This is our responsibility as conscious creatures capable of imagining the future. We will surely falter in this endeavor (I did just admit we are imperfect), but we must aim toward the perfection of our craft, continually toward the destination, parallel to an asymptote infinitely approaching a given value.
If you suspected that publishing bad news might have a palpably negative effect on the morale of your country, your workplace, your school, or even your family, would you consider keeping it quiet?
ReplyDeleteIf I knew information that could potentially harm the place, or people, I care about I would keep it quiet. I put protecting the things I love over always being honest. You could say this is the same thing America did by not publishing the bombings. America was protecting the wellbeing of it's residents by not telling them sensitive information.
Given that withholding information is not the same thing as lying, shouldn't you always consider withholding information if you think the effect of sharing it would be harmful?
No, you should not always withhold information even if it is harmful. For example, if you knew your friend's partner was cheating on them. It would be wrong for you to keep that information from them even if they will be upset when they hear it.
When is it disloyal or unpatriotic for an instructor to ask their students to study such shortcomings?
Never. Education should never be something that has to be "held back" because it puts a mark on the reputation of the country. Many textbooks today have been heavily "watered down" to downplay the actual actions of the U.S. If children were to learn of these actions at an early age they would become more politically and historically intelligent.
Question 1: no i would not keep quiet. Especially in a modern day environment were is nearly impossible to hide direct footage from combat zones and wars if it is revealed that you are actively concealing important information regarding the lives of soldiers and civilians the amount of backlash and pressure applied will not only lead to massive distrust but in some possibilities riots. An example of this can actually be seen today in the United Kingdom especially after the Online Safety Act where people are actively getting censored about the terrible things happening. It has gotten so bad that massive protest have formed as well as riots
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: it depends on the severity of the problem. For example, if I accidentally wrote a little too hard on a piece of paper and it ended up scratching the surface under it and I knew that the people who bought the desk would be upset I would most likely not say anything because overall its not that big of a deal. HOWEVER, not mentioning the number of casualties in something like an accident or disaster and not mentioning how it was completely avoidable but because either an individual or group caused this to happen and refusing to bring it to attention is extremely unethical. Even if it results in putting a massive dent in someone's reputation you cannot let something like this go quiet
Question 3: There is no problem in criticizing your home country in the belief that you want these problems to be fixed. Calling your nation terrible at doing a certain task with the intention of bringing awareness to the problem to be fixed is not the same as actively bashing your nation because you simply dislike it. There is a huge difference between disloyalty and blind patriotism.
Question 4: It isn't. Everyone's job is to improve themselves at the personal, community, and national level. The best way to improve yourself is to understand what you're doing wrong and why. There is no disloyalty in finding and publishing problems if you are actively trying to solve the problems
Question 5: It all depends on the circumstances and the severity. Something very important to mention is during the vietnam war the vietcong would actively hide in civilian environments making it very hard to reduce civilian casualties. This is one of the major problems in a lot of modern wars such as Ukraine and Palestine. One or both sides of the conflict are actively doing military operations in the vicinity of civilians which is heavily against the Geneva convention and causes mass casualties. I mention all this because it forcibly determines the level of acceptable error. If a bomber goes off course and hits an orphanage 20 miles away from the target then yes it would be a huge deal. But if the orphanage was a mile away from the military site then that's another issue because why was the military site so close. With that out of the way you also have to way in the severity. A leopard colony being bombed would absolutely not be as discussed as heavily as an orphanage being bombed because as humans we naturally prioritize humans first. If it was to be heavily scrutinized it would less be about the leopards and more the errors that took place leading to the bombing of the leopard colony and how to make sure it wont affect humans