Massimo, thank you for following up on Stockdale. While I disagree with your position on the man, this brought some clarity to your reasoning. There is a fork which must be addressed: professional versus personal ethics. A defense counsel represents their client's interests, even when the client is guilty, and we see this as necessary to preserve a justice system in which all are equal before the law. A soldier serves the interest of the state (not the good, although it is preferred that these align), and we see this as necessary for military effectiveness and inseperable from the the tradition of civilian control over the military.
A survey of history tells us that when soldiers have voted with their feet, they have often voted with their arms as well. The subordination of personal morality to professional ethic is therefore a safeguard of the democratic state. This can create moral dilemmas and Stockdale's dilemma is exemplary of the type.
This begs the counter of Stoic cosmopolitanism and the universality of virtue, which brings us back to the start, asking "what is the benchmark of a Stoic?" Epictetus was a sage, but Marcus Aurelius did not see himself as such. He was a good Emperor, but he was an emperor and understood that his interests were the interests of Rome, il etait l'etat. We look up to Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca for the way they navigated the moral dilemmas of office and command, even when they did so imperfectly. Indeed, I see a direct parallel between Roman wars to establish defensive buffers on its frontiers with the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine of containment which precipitated American defense of South Vietnam.
Does a lawyer who defends a guilty client commit an immoral act? Perhaps in isolation, yes, and that's why many people avoid that part of the profession. But a fair system of justice extends defense counsel all accused, so we need lawyers who will serve guilty clients. A state has a natural right to defense (how far this right extends is controversial). Therefore the state needs soldiers, and soldiers who don't subordinate themselves to legitimate authority are dangerous to everyone, as the history of Rome itself shows. We therefore have an ethical norm that soldiers serve the legitimate authority of the state so long as their orders are not manifestly unlawful. Stockdale acted within the constraints of that norm.
Massimo, thank you for following up on Stockdale. While I disagree with your position on the man, this brought some clarity to your reasoning. There is a fork which must be addressed: professional versus personal ethics. A defense counsel represents their client's interests, even when the client is guilty, and we see this as necessary to preserve a justice system in which all are equal before the law. A soldier serves the interest of the state (not the good, although it is preferred that these align), and we see this as necessary for military effectiveness and inseperable from the the tradition of civilian control over the military.
A survey of history tells us that when soldiers have voted with their feet, they have often voted with their arms as well. The subordination of personal morality to professional ethic is therefore a safeguard of the democratic state. This can create moral dilemmas and Stockdale's dilemma is exemplary of the type.
This begs the counter of Stoic cosmopolitanism and the universality of virtue, which brings us back to the start, asking "what is the benchmark of a Stoic?" Epictetus was a sage, but Marcus Aurelius did not see himself as such. He was a good Emperor, but he was an emperor and understood that his interests were the interests of Rome, il etait l'etat. We look up to Stoics like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca for the way they navigated the moral dilemmas of office and command, even when they did so imperfectly. Indeed, I see a direct parallel between Roman wars to establish defensive buffers on its frontiers with the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine of containment which precipitated American defense of South Vietnam.
Does a lawyer who defends a guilty client commit an immoral act? Perhaps in isolation, yes, and that's why many people avoid that part of the profession. But a fair system of justice extends defense counsel all accused, so we need lawyers who will serve guilty clients. A state has a natural right to defense (how far this right extends is controversial). Therefore the state needs soldiers, and soldiers who don't subordinate themselves to legitimate authority are dangerous to everyone, as the history of Rome itself shows. We therefore have an ethical norm that soldiers serve the legitimate authority of the state so long as their orders are not manifestly unlawful. Stockdale acted within the constraints of that norm.