Stephen Kershnar - Gratitude toward Veterans: Why Americans Should Not Be Very Grateful to Veterans

Gratitude toward Veterans

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kershnar, Stephen.

Gratitude toward veterans : why Americans should not be very grateful to veterans / Stephen Kershnar.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-7391-8578-0 (cloth) -- ISBN 978-0-7391-8579-7 (electronic)

1. Veterans--United States. 2. Civil-military relations--United States. 3. Gratitude. I. Title. II. Title: Why Americans should not be very grateful to veterans.

UB357.K47 2014

305.9'06970973--dc23

2014004211

TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

To my Uncle Gus Rubin, Navy veteran, tough guy, and wonderful
influence on my life

In writing this book, I am grateful to my mother, Arlene Kershnar; brother, Eric Kershnar; and sister, Sari Reikes. They are an endless source of ideas, humor, activities, and good food. I love my time with them and their families. We have spent many momentous days (holidays, birthdays, weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, etc.) and some hard days (funerals, unveilings, memorial services, etc.) together. They are ever present in my life and very much loved.

I am particularly grateful to friends and colleagues who have provided me with incredibly interesting and insightful feedback on this book. My colleague Neil Feit read and gave me comments on every chapter. Many of the ideas in it were hatched during our discussions, often while watching football, drinking wine, or hanging out in the office. Two friends, George Schedler and Thad Metz, have been an invaluable source of comments, criticisms, and ideas. I am fortunate to have such generous and intelligent people with whom to exchange ideas. I also benefited from two of my colleagues, Andy Cullison and Dale Tuggy. Along with Neil and myself, we are the beer-drinking metaphysicians and this group has provided me with very sharp comments. I am also grateful to Robert Audi, Michael Levin, Larry Lombard, and especially the late Louis P. Pojman for the way in which they encouraged me and gave my ideas careful consideration. I am very lucky that my path has crossed such generous and gifted scholars.

For feedback on these chapters, I am very grateful to the extremely helpful comments and criticisms of Maj. Chris Case, Maj. Danny Cazier, Randy Dipert, Neil Feit, Eric Kershnar, Col. Krawczyk, LTC Chris Mayer, George Schedler, Richard Schoonhoven, Maj. Bob Underwood, and Maj. Daniel Zupan. I am also grateful to attendees of lectures on these chapters at United States Military Academy at West Point, New York; International Society of Military Ethics conference; Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, Kansas; and the Philosophy Society at State University of New York at Fredonia.

Americans are very grateful to veterans. They often say that people serve in the military, but work as farmers or garbage men. Veterans are celebrated via speeches, statues, memorials, holidays, and affirmative action. They are lavishly praised in public gatherings and private conversations. In contrast to their attitude toward veterans, U.S. citizens are not very grateful to farmers, sanitation workers, intellectuals, teachers, and so on. They get no holidays, few statues and memorials, far less praise, and no affirmative action. The theme of this book is that Americans should have a similar attitude toward veterans.

Despite the difference in how Americans value them, historically, farmers did as much for them as did the military. Specifically, their food added as much to Americans well-being as did the militarys protection. To see this, consider what American life would be like if no one (or, perhaps, no full-time farmers) grew food and no one worked as a soldier. The idea here is that starvation poses as much a threat as invasion, whether today or in the past. The two are not easily separated because to some degree members of the military depend on farmer-grown food and farmers depend on military-provided protection. The counterfactuals are even more difficult to consider because the contribution of each group affected reproduction patterns that in turn affected who is alive today. Hence, most, if not all, current people owe their very existence to each group. Here I simply note that there is no reason to believe that the military members contribution is greater than that of farmers, whether we compare the contribution of the collections or the average member.

Let us consider the above argument in a little more depth. If the above argument is correct, then Americans currently alive today would not have been alive but for the farmers who fed their ancestors. The idea is that the availability of food affected who lived where and thus who reproduced with whom. If a persons parents are an essential feature of her, then she would not have lived had her parents not met and had intercourse. Americans thus owe farmers their lives. The problem is that this is not a benefit because we cannot compare how well life goes for them when they exist to how well it goes for them when they do not. The problem is that if a person does not exist, then nothing has any value to her (0-value or otherwise). Thus, it is impossible to say how much farmers contributed to Americans lives because this involves comparing two states, one of which has no value to them.

The background idea here is that a benefit is something that makes someones life go better than it would otherwise go. Examples might include a gift, marriage, or education. Harm involves the same comparison, except that the thing in question makes the life go worse.

This problem is similar to a non-existence problem that plagues the notion that current African-Americans are owed reparations for slavery. The problem is that slavery affected reproduction patterns and hence current African-Americans would not have existed but for slavery. Thus, they owe their lives to slavery. For the reason mentioned above, we cannot compare how well life goes for them when they exist to how well it goes for them when they do not.

An objector might claim that when a person does not exist, everything has 0-value to her. The problem is that how valuable something is to her is a property of her and she cannot exemplify it if she does not exist. That is, if a person does not exist, then there is no subject to have the 0-value.

The problem reoccurs with regard to veterans. If veterans did not defend the United States, it likely would have been overrun by other countries. This likely would have greatly affected reproduction patterns. Americans currently alive today would likely not have been alive but for the military members who defended them. Again, this is a problem because if current Americans would not have existed, but for veterans efforts, the comparison necessary for them to have been benefitted makes no sense. The counterfactuals get even murkier because the actual veterans would not have existed but for the actual farmers (and vice versa), but for simplicity let us ignore this wrinkle.