I always thought it was ironic that people assume soldiers and police officers are somehow ignorant or less educated than others. Just recently, as often happens, I came across a couple memes that made me consider how ridiculous that outlook could be, but also how important it is for soldiers and law enforcement professionals – both warriors of a sort – to not only be reasonably educated but schooled in the philosophy of righteous force. In this essay I’m going to take a look at both professions and the value of wise judgement, most especially under threat and in circumstances of compressed time. To pursue this train of thought, I think it would be good to define a few terms and then describe what I mean when I put them together.
Warrior: a person engaged or experienced in warfare; soldier (see below for more).
(NOTE: For the purpose of this essay I may use “conflict” in place of “warfare,” as it’s used in that definition.)
Righteous: characterized by uprightness or morality; morally right or justifiable; acting in an upright, moral way.
Soldier: a person who serves in an army; a person of military skill or experience; a person who contends or serves in any cause.
Police: (noun) an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crimes, and enforcing the laws. (Also) members of such a force. (This also applies to any variety of titles given to those of such employ, i.e. deputies, troopers, agents, etc.)
Philosopher: a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, especially under trying circumstances; a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
Scholar: a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
The quote that I think moves me most with regard to this topic is as follows:
“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” – Thucydides
Now, as a military veteran I can honestly tell you that there is a need and purpose for those soldiers who simply follow orders without questioning the motivation. However, I think we can all agree that such is morally unacceptable. There is a reason why we hold soldiers responsible for their actions at that individual level, with little or no regard given to the orders they received. The individual soldier is required to know whether or not the order given is lawful and further is most often empowered to object on the basis of moral belief. That means, that to at least some minimum extent, we expect every warrior (soldier) to have a working knowledge of the laws and treaties that control the behavior of war.
This applies at an even greater level when applied to the law enforcement professional. When it comes to policing a society, the law enforcement professional (officer) must be thoroughly well versed in laws at many levels – federal, state, county and city – as well as the general orders of the employing agency, any Special Operations Procedures, applicable personnel rules, etc. To be ignorant of any particular law, order, policy or rule at any level is insufficient to protect the officer from prosecution or disciplinary action.
It is easy then to see that it benefits the soldier / officer to be well educated in any law, order, rule or other guideline that controls, empowers or restricts their behavior in a given conflict. But does such education also benefit the community or society served?
For further purpose of this discussion, let’s accept two axioms:
Laws are, by definition, finite. They set forth restrictions on behavior and label behavior as either “legal” or “illegal.” Much has been written about “the letter of the law” as compared to “the spirit of the law,” but at the end of the day, laws say what they say and only can be interpreted so much.
Morals are ambiguous and personal. What I deem to be “right” could be considered wrong by many others. The same can be said in reverse. But just because a behavior is morally right or wrong, doesn’t immediately mean that it’s legal or illegal. A behavior if properly justified (if “righteous”) could be morally right but still illegal in the eyes of the law. Opposite that, an action could be morally wrong but still legal according to the law.
By circumstance of purpose, the legislatures of men can only define “legal” and “illegal;” not right and wrong. There is no law that legislates morality.
So, do we want our soldiers/officers to act strictly in compliance with legality? Or do we, as a society, want them to further act within the confines of morality? And if we require of them that they act within the confines of morality, even if it means outside the requirements of legality, aren’t we asking them to exercise much higher judgment than that of an individual who works without risk of conflict or violence? In the case of the law enforcement professional, since we empower them with the responsibility and lawful authority to arrest citizens, removing from them their immediate liberty, shouldn’t we demand of them a demonstrated higher level of judgment where morality is concerned?
I believe the answer is yes and that’s why I support the concept that anyone who works in a profession of arms, whether it’s as a soldier or a police officer in civilian society, should be educated beyond “the norm” of average citizenry. This education should be philosophical and scholarly concerning morality, and how morality better serves society than the finite laws created by legislatures.
Yes, I am aware that this outlook can be considered dangerous as it would seem to empower officers to work “outside the law,” but I disagree. I believe that this approach would empower the officers to work within the confines of the law but to a higher standard of righteousness than required by the law. It would require a greater level of consideration and judgment in every instance, thereby demonstrating the increased value of freedoms and liberties every citizen enjoys.
That’s why I believe that today’s warriors – in whatever arena they serve – should strive to reach beyond the minimum required levels of education and training and pursue a higher level of knowledge in philosophy: the philosophies surrounding morality, individual value, the value of liberty and the price of enforcement. It’s easy to justify taking the liberty of one person away if it protects or benefits society in any potential way. However, we first have to ensure that we’re acting within the confines of the laws, orders and policies that govern our job performance, and then we must also ensure that we are acting within the confines of morality – doing the right thing.
Falling short of that leaves us in the unenviable position of having our society policed by fools. We already have our laws all too often being made by people incapable of fighting (cowards) who profess pacifism while legislating peaceful coexistence (at least that’s their intent). Where does wisdom, judgement and moral intent come into play? At the tip of the spear, where the services are provided; by the warrior on the street. That is where we must strive to increase the scholarship, wisdom and judgment as we can.