JonathanBydlak
Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 247
Stephen Dubner of the Freakonomics blog has this post regarding West Point cadets' views of war:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/war-is/#more-789.
They struck me as pretty ridiculous so I posted this comment (which has yet to show up on the site):
I'd encourage anyone else on here to leave a comment as well.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/war-is/#more-789.
They struck me as pretty ridiculous so I posted this comment (which has yet to show up on the site):
Dubner states that "The 12 answers reflect the thoughtful, varied, and independent mindset that I have always encountered when dealing with folks at West Point."
Interestingly, I reached the opposite conclusion. The comments from our cadets are largely homogenous in that they all view war as "necessary" or yielding a "net positive" in some cases. But none state unequivocally that war is morally reprehensible, nor reflect Randolph Bourne's view that "war is the health of the state."
To me, these views do not represent diversity of opinion, but rather the effects of years of borderline brainwashing. I mean to take nothing away from our cadets, who assuredly are very bright, but it is virtually impossible for a cadet to think "independently" on this question. How can one be starting in the armed services and morally reject using warfare as a means to an end?
I'd encourage anyone else on here to leave a comment as well.