Modern "Warrior" Ethics

[Makalakumu]

It seems as if the word "Warrior" has been trashed a lot in modern times. The myths and legends that drove this "meme" have been disabused or outright debunked. Or have they?

To me, the word "Warrior" describes a mindset, a philosophy, a system of ethics. And recently, I've been doing some research on various ethical systems. My question is this, is there a way to recast this image, with a modern set of ethics, for a modern martial artist to follow?

If so, what ethics would a modern warrior follow?

upnorthkyosa

ps - I'm using modern to describe the current cultural attitudes held by industrialized nations.

 

[Tgace]

This is what the US Army is doing to approach the subject...

http://www.armystudyguide.com/Warrior-Ethos/

 

[Tgace]

More

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98autumn/brinsfie.htm

 

[Makalakumu]

Would civilian ethical concerns would be different then a soldiers regarding martial arts?

The purpose of an ethical system is to inform our moral choices. For most martial artists the question of "when it is appropriate to use warrior skills" is a common question.

 

[Tgace]

Would civilian ethical concerns would be different then a soldiers regarding martial arts?

The purpose of an ethical system is to inform our moral choices. For most martial artists the question of "when it is appropriate to use warrior skills" is a common question.

Depends on how you classify "warrior". IMO its used way too freely these days. Anybody and everybody is laying claim to the title, which cheapens it (when everybody is special nobody is). From my perspective, a Warrior has to "put it on the line for something". There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.

Every animal on the planet will fight to protect themselves when pressed. Dosent make them "warriors" in my view. Fewer will go towards the danger out of a sense of duty or service to their fellows or their ideals.

 

[Andrew Green]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.

Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.

There is a lot of leeway in what that "line" is, but being a "warrior" with no sense of duty or service to something other than oneself is hollow.

Well said.

Unless you are willing to give your life for no other reason then the country you serve tells you too, and you take that as your full time occupation, you're not a warrior.

You might be a leader, a fighter, a activist or any other number of things.

 

[Makalakumu]

From my perspective, training in a martial art trains one in the arts of the warrior. Some may disagree with this assessment depending on the art, but that is just a lineage argument. As in, "can you tie your art to some famous warrior?"

Can someone train in the martial arts and not be a warrior? Yes. But, that is an ethical question. The reason someone is not a warrior is because they haven't assumed the philosophy, the mindset, the ethics of a warrior...not because they haven't learned the skills.

Putting one's life on the "line", duty, and honor, these are all aspects of warrior ethics, yet I think the philosophy can be more specific. More detailed. So that one could at least explain it better to others without the ambiguity inherit in our "modern" lives.

There are some well established systems of ethics out there. I wonder which one fits peoples concepts of a warrior the closest?

 

[Tgace]

This cross link could be productive...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24479

As to systems of ethics, why dont you post some that you know of and we can go from there?

 

[Tgace]

As to "putting it on the line". Thats an "action" as I see it, not an ethic. Living by a code, system of ethics, studying martial arts etc. Is emulating a warrior, not being one....

 

[Makalakumu]

This is taken from this site...

http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/bi/1992/ethical_systems.html

ETHICAL SYSTEMS

RELATIVISM - No principles are universally valid. All moral principles are valid relative to cultural tastes. The rules of the society serve as a standard.

S- Brings about tolerance of other cultures. Keeps societies from falling apart. W- Confuses what ought to be done with what is cur-rently done.

South Seas Islanders practice cannibalism. Cannibalism is strictly prohibited in the U.S.

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY - Moral standards depend on God who is all-knowing. Any act that conforms to the law of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.

S- Standards are from a higher authority than humans. Gives reasons why man should behave morally. Gives worth to all equally. W- Can be arbitrary depend-ing on interpretation. Can we know the true divine authority?

Christian religions point believers to rules like the Ten Commandments.

UTILITARIANISM - Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Each person's happiness is equally important.

S- Promotes human well-being and attempts to lessen human suffering. W- One person's good can be another's evil. Hard to predict accurately all consequences.

The U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII believing it was worth the loss of life to gain the end of the war and stop the higher loss of life if the war continued.

DEONTOLOGY - Emphasis is on moral rules and duty. If not willing for everyone to follow the rule, then it is not morally permissible. Emphasis on autonomy, justice and kind acts. People treated as ends, never means.

S- It provides a special moral status for humans. Moral rules are universal. W- It says nothing about other living things. Rules can be abstract.

In the U.S. a continued emphasis on human rights for all people stems from a willingness to reason that justice and equal treatment ought to be applied universally.

VIRTUE ETHICS - Morals are internal. It seeks to produce good people who act well out of spontaneous goodness. It emphasizes living well and achieving excellence.

S- It internalize moral behavior. W- Offers no guidance for resolving ethical dilemmas.

A faculty determines that a student council officer with a genuine interest to serve deserves more recognition than one who just wants to beef up his resume.

There are many systems of ethics that currently exist. I'm wondering which best informs a warrior. Which philosophy would aid a warrior in putting one's life on the line and inform a warriors sense of duty and honor? All of this may just be personal preference, yet there just may be one that is a better all around fit.

 

[Tgace]

I dont think you are going to find many "warriors" who are going to subscribe wholly to a relativistic system of ethics. If nobody is "wrong" then how are you going to fight them? So to a certain culture, killing a woman because she was raped is "right", starving/slaughtering entire tribes/races of people is "right"...who are we to step in and say they were worng? Cannibalism, as practiced today in small tribes in obscure locations is different from an entire "modern" nation starting to practice it.

The Nazis thought they were right.

That whole line of thinking may be good for historians as far as making "judgments" about historic actions, but leaves us no course of action in the present time.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here are some more ethical systems. Some of them repeat, but there are new ones...

ETHICAL SYSTEMS

A Superficial Overview
​

​

Robin Dawes
​

​

​

Ethical Relativism
​

​

​

​

​

Some believe that any effort to establish ethical standards is futile because there can be no objective standards. This school of thought is called Ethical Relativism. It comes in two main flavours:

​

Individual Relativism: as long as the individual behaves in a way that they believe is moral and proper, there is no basis for criticising them.

​

Cultural Relativism: as long as the individual behaves in a way which is consistent with the moral beliefs of their culture, there is no basis for criticising them.

These philosophies are very weak in the sense that it is trivially easy to construct scenarios in which virtually nobody would be willing to agree with the conclusions. Nonetheless, ethical relativism is a widely encountered viewpoint among those who shy away from ethical reflection. Some people support ethical relativism in the mistaken belief that the only alternative is moral absolutism (the belief that there are moral rules to which there are no exceptions). In fact, another alternative exists: moral objectivism or moral realism, in which the context of an action can be considered when evaluating the moral value of the action.

​

​

Some Recognized Ethical Theories
​

​

​

​

The following ethical theories or systems can serve as guidelines for thinking about ethical questions. None of them is perfect, and they should not be expected to provide simple resolutions to complex situations.

There are two broad categories of ethical systems:

Teleological systems: the consequences of an action are given priority. The ethical value of an action is determined by the desirability of the outcome it produces. Right actions are those which produce the greatest good. We will consider ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism.

Deontological systems: actions are considered to be intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the consequences they produce. We will consider divine command theory, virtue theory, Kantianism, and contractualism.

​

​

Teleological Systems
​

​

ETHICAL EGOISM

Central Theme: One ought to do whatever is in one’s own best interests, regardless of the effect on other people.

​

Strengths: corresponds to "natural law", survival of the fittest.

​

Weaknesses: individual interests may be completely contrary to the needs/goals of society.

​

Example: if possible to do so without being caught, one should rob a bank at the earliest opportunity.

UTILITARIANISM

​

Central Theme: One ought to seek to produce the greatest possible balance of good over evil for all who will be affected by one’s actions.

​

Strengths: Attempts to lessen human suffering.

​

Weaknesses: Something that brings happiness to one person may not bring happiness to another person.

​

Example: The U.S. justified dropping atomic bombs on Japan in WWII by claiming it was worth the loss of life to end the war and stop the higher loss of life if the war continued.

ACT-UTILITARIANISM

As individuals, we are obligated to apply the principal of utilitarianism in all situations.

Example: Spock sacrifices his life to stabilize the matter-antimatter reactor.



RULE-UTILITARIANISM

As a society, we should adopt rules which, if followed by everybody, will

achieve the best outcome in the long run.

Example: It is ethically correct to turn out the lights when a room is empty, because this reduces power consumption and pollution.







Deontological Systems

​

DIVINE COMMAND THEORY

​

Central Theme: Moral standards have been established by God who is all-knowing. An act that conforms to the law of God is right; an act that breaks God's law is wrong.

​

Strengths: Standards are from a higher authority than humans.

​

Weaknesses: can be arbitrary depending on interpretation. Can we know the true divine authority, or the true meaning of the divine commands?

​

Example: Religions that point believers to rule sets like the Ten Commandments.

VIRTUE THEORY

​

Central Theme: Morals are internal. Virtues are character traits that make possible the achievement of social good. An act is ethical if it conforms to the relevant virtues.

​

Strengths: assigns moral responsibility to the individual.

​

Weaknesses: relies on universal agreement on virtues.

​

Example: Serving on a student council because it will benefit others is more ethical than serving on the council because it will improve one’s resume.

​

KANTIANISM

Central Theme: An individual is acting ethically if the generalization of the act would be desirable as a universal law of behaviour. Acts must respect the human dignity and worth of others. (Developed in great detail by Kant.)

​

Strengths: applies the same rules to everybody, and values human dignity.

​

Weaknesses: excessively rigid interpretation can lead to outcomes which do not satisfy anybody.

​

Examples: The proposition "I may kill people whenever convenient" must be rejected because as a universal law this would permit other people to kill me if they found it convenient to do so.

However, Kant concludes that always telling the absolute truth is a moral obligation because lying does not respect the dignity and worth of the person to whom we lie.

​

CONTRACTUALISM

Central Theme: As members of society, we have implicit contracts with each other. Acts are ethical if they do not violate these contracts. Rules are acceptable if rational people agree that they form the basis for mutually beneficial relationships.

​

Strengths: supports social structure, and is based on widely shared notions of "fair play".

​

Weaknesses: can slide towards cultural relativism.

​

Example: it is unethical for a parent to fail to care for a child to the extent of their ability.

​

​

 

[The Kai]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider. The tactics used by a large body of soliders are different then the tactics/strategies used by a individual, especially when that individual is not part of or looking to reestablish himself as part of a larger unit.

Then there is need(s) as a civilian martial artist for lethal techniques? Is there a need for control techniques. repeat question for everything in between. What percentage of restraint, counter offensive and kill techniques need to be taught- on a battlefield there is probably very little need for a wristlock.

As a Martail artist there is simply more freedom of choice, I do not have to support the idea of a war-if I don't agree with the policies. As a Warrior/solider you have too.
IMHO too many martial artist get off on the whole "warrior" thing. "Why yes I train in Kenpo, I am of course a Warrior" . Then walk around like you have a stick up your behind cuz now you have the Honorable Warrior Pose thing!

I am a human being (which I get right about 80 percent of the time)
I am a Fighter, I fight if I have too-not want too

Creed ?
I don't believe in 90 percent of the creeds you recite in a Karate Class. They are adaptions of military creeds, which may not be 100 percent parralell with my life
Thanks
Todd

 

[Makalakumu]

I dont think you are going to find many "warriors" who are going to subscribe wholly to a relativistic system of ethics. If nobody is "wrong" then how are you going to fight them? So to a certain culture, killing a woman because she was raped is "right", starving/slaughtering entire tribes/races of people is "right"...who are we to step in and say they were worng? Cannibalism, as practiced today in small tribes in obscure locations is different from an entire "modern" nation starting to practice it.

The Nazis thought they were right.

That whole line of thinking may be good for historians as far as making "judgments" about historic actions, but leaves us no course of action in the present time.

There is some truth to this. When one learns the "warrior arts" one is learning how to fight. The question of when and what are ethical questions and they are the questions that separate those who are warriors and those who just go through the motions or "emulate" as you have put it above.

 

[Tgace]

Traioning in the martial arts is not neccesaarrily training in the arts of the warrior/solider. The tactics used by a large body of soliders are different then the tactics/strategies used by a individual, especially when that individual is not part of or looking to reestablish himself as part of a larger unit.

Then there is need(s) as a civilian martial artist for lethal techniques? Is there a need for control techniques. repeat question for everything in between. What percentage of restraint, counter offensive and kill techniques need to be taught- on a battlefield there is probably very little need for a wristlock.

Well...not really disagreeing entirely with your point, but warfare these days isnt large mobs of guys standing shoulder to shoulder with shields, or barren "no mans lands" swept by machine gun fire anymore. The prevalance of Urban/close combat situations, insurgency operations, peacekeeping and "Operations Other Than War" present many various situations where less than total destruction could be called for. For example where protesters or "terror suspects" may have to be taken into custody vs. being pulverized by automatic weapons fire.

 

[ginshun]

Warriors are people who follow orders without question and are there to kill or die for thier Country / Lord.

Of course it has been romanticized a lot lately, but fir a civillian to claim to be a warrior is really rather silly.


Unless you are willing to give your life for no other reason then the country you serve tells you too, and you take that as your full time occupation, you're not a warrior.

You might be a leader, a fighter, a activist or any other number of things.

You are describing a soldier, not a warrior. There is a distinction, to me at least. A soldier does what he does based on orders from somebody, while a warrior does what he does based on his own personal convictions. This is not to say that one person cannot encompass both ideas, but that is not always the case. A warrior is a much more personal idea system in my mind.

 

[Tgace]

You are describing a soldier, not a warrior. There is a distinction, to me at least. A soldier does what he does based on orders from somebody, while a warrior does what he does based on his own personal convictions. This is not to say that one person cannot encompass both ideas, but that is not always the case. A warrior is a much more personal idea system in my mind.

Not traditionally. Samurai, Knights, Vikings etc. all fought when their Lords/Chieftans/Shoguns etc. told them to. The "lone warrior" thing is a fantasy myth IMO.

 

[Andrew Green]

From my perspective, training in a martial art trains one in the arts of the warrior. Some may disagree with this assessment depending on the art, but that is just a lineage argument. As in, "can you tie your art to some famous warrior?"

Most martial arts systems don't have ties to the military at all. None of the "big" ones do. Kung-Fu was buhdist monks, Karate was Civillian, TKD/TSD comes from karate and is also civillian.

Koryu arts perhaps can tie in. But not much else...

 

[Tgace]

Heres another thread I posted a LONG time ago with relevance to this issue...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14172&highlight=warrior

 

[ginshun]

Not traditionally. Samurai, Knights, Vikings etc. all fought when their Lords/Chieftans/Shoguns etc. told them to. The "lone warrior" thing is a fantasy myth IMO.

I guess that I would argue that Samurai, Knights, and Vikings were all soldiers.
On an individual basis they may have been warriors as well, but were soldiers first and formost.

A soldier isn't neccessarily a warrior, and a warrior isn't neccessarily a soldier.

It really is semantics I suppose.

To me soldier is a very external distinction. You follow orders, you are part of an army, you fight who you are told to fight.

A warrior is more on an internal distinction. Not my words, but ones I believe:

"A warrior is a clear thinker and clear looker who engages the challenges of the world and strives to master the natural internal battles of everyday life. A warrior is formost at war with ignorance and personal weakness."

That is how I like to think of "warrior".