Kant vs. DADT
The Morality of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Don’t Harass Don’t Pursue
President Reagan once boasted proclaiming the United States a “Shinning city upon a hill.” The analogy of an exemplary Nation of greatness and, above all, morality. Unfortunately those words have fallen south as the United States, the most diverse country in the world, has fought aggressively against unity and equality. It is astounding that a country of oppressed immigrants, built on enlightenment theory and hardly two centuries old has struggled so much to evolve. The United States, although bearing overwhelming potential to be such a city as Reagan dreamed it to be, has a tarnishing history of hateful discrimination. Given the nature of the imperative to rely on one another to survive, one might reason that the military would be a model for equality. The human factor however, guarantees that bigots will exist within any group of people. The danger is when they earn the position to solidify their ideas in the institution through policy.
Not surprisingly the first member of the armed forces to be targeted based on his alleged sexuality goes as far back as 1778. The officer, Lieutenant Enslin, after being found to be a homosexual was recommended for discharge. Because there was no law against homosexuality at this time, it was suggested he be charged for sodomy. The President, our forefather George Washington condoned this prejudice and approved the Lieutenants discharge. By 1947 began a massive campaign to keep homosexuals out of the ranks. The targeted service member need not be found to have ever committed a homosexual act, suspicion of homosexuality was enough for the soldier to be forced out with no benefits.
As the Macarthian witch-hunt gained momentum an official report was ordered to look into how homosexuals serving affected the military. The investigation was conducted by the military itself, not some liberal institute or university. The conclusion: “gay-identified people were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexual-identified people, and found there was no rational basis for excluding gay people from the military”. The report was titled, “Crittendent”, and was conducted in 1957. The United States government has allowed the Pentagon to maintain institutionalized discrimination 52 years after its own research concluded there was no basis for such a policy.
As the military climate encouraged homophobia, cases of brutal abuse began to get out of control. In the early 90’s a young President Clinton was forced to stand up to the Generals and do something to end the gross treatment of gays and lesbians serving the US Armed Forces. The former president took a bold stance on the discrimination against our countries finest. As a mere presidential hopeful he announced he would lift the ban on gays in the military. Once elected, the Washington newcomer and non veteran was blindsided with opposition both on the Hill and at the Pentagon. Once again, an official report, this time done by the RAND corporation, (a research and development institute mostly relied on by congress and the pentagon for issues of national security) determined that there was no evidence that would qualify that homosexuals adversely affect unit cohesion, moral, recruitment, retention, and military readiness.
In all fairness, the President did not go down easy. Ultimately he put forth a compromise, one that at the time, the administration was confident would protect gays and lesbians serving in uniform and allow for a truce that would hold the cause over until there was a friendlier political climate. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Don’t Harass Don’t Pursue, they named it. Simple enough. Mind your own business and treat everyone with dignity. Unfortunately, all that made into the law was, Don’t Tell.
(For the sake of the length of this article, I will limit my arguments based on the immeasurably influential 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who many claim is single handedly responsible for an entire paradigm shift. As a pioneer and forefather of the Enlightenment upon whose ideals this Nation was founded, I find Kantian philosophy a perfectly relevant and solid premise for this argument. )
Here lies the first of many ethical and moral violations by the DADT policy. To Kant, to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences was unacceptable. Applying the permissibility of lying to his first formulation of categorical imperatives, Kant would argue that if we allowed service members to lie, in this instance, about their sexuality, we would never know who was telling the truth. There is documented evidence of this during the Draft (and in every major US war and conflict for that matter) where young straight men claimed to be gay simply to disqualify themselves from service. Don’t Ask, did not make it to the legal aspect of the law. Therefore, superiors are allowed to inquire about a service member’s sexuality all they want. This then, forces the gay or lesbian service member to repeatedly lie if he or she wishes to maintain their hard earned career. As the Universalist that he was, Kant swore that, “By a lie, a man… annihilates his dignity as a man.” This brings us to the next offense on morality of the DADT policy, Human Dignity.
Kant is hailed as a champion of human rights. He charged, “Always recognize that humans are ends, and do not use them as means to your ends.” In the Kantian spirit the American Medical Association voted on Nov 11th, of this year, only days ago to support the repeal of DADT claiming it had a, “chilling effect” on the gay and lesbian service member. The American Psychological Society in its policy on statement on sexual orientation and military service that it, “recognizes and abhors the many detrimental effects that the law has on the individual service member”. Indeed the Veterans Affairs Department of the United States has diagnosed me with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, inability to sleep, major depression, and suicidal tendencies, after being sexually assaulted, mentally and physically abused and humiliated for over two years for simply refusing to identify as gay. These symptoms, recognized by the VA, AMA, and APA, combined with the affects of duality, (living separate lives) caused by DADT, affect millions in our active duty and veteran community.
Then there is Kant’s take on moral and ethical justice. Kant says that, “ it [punishment] must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.” DADT violates this principle. It is a cornerstone of American Justice that you cannot convict someone who has not committed a crime. My discharge, and many like it read, “ one must believe that the member, based on the fact that he is a homosexual, has, will, intends to, or has the propensity to, commit a homosexual act.” In other words, the service member has not violated any laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice but on the premise that he might, we will convict and discharge given member. This is a judicially immoral and unethical.
Of course there remains Kant’s universal maxim, “ act that your principle of action be made law of the whole world.” Now as much as I would like to attribute this to the simple action of being allowed to love the person you choose, I will refrain and apply this rather to the over all safety of our men and women in uniform. The DADT policy has used as a tool by bigots and sexual offenders to target anyone they please, straight or gay, male and female with a perfect alibi. Would you have that the skills and contributions of women, or ethnic and religious minorities be removed from the ranks due to the ignorance of only a handful? Then why apply such a norm to gays? Statistics show that gays and lesbians being kicked out are of a high and vital skill set to military readiness. The most recent polling shows that service member and the nation are in favor of a repeal. The most current research shows that 1 of 4 returning Iraq an d Afghanistan veterans know of and accept a gay or lesbian serving in their unit. Can anyone qualify that a gay or lesbians life lost in battle is worth less than any others?
Now of course one can go on to argue that threatening national security by discharging 13,500 service members while we are engaged in two overseas conflicts or wastefully spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on upholding a policy of discrimination during a national recession, are themselves immoral and unethical qualities of DADT.
Instead I would like to conclude by proving that DADT fails to pass Kant’s rules for determining moral imperative:
- Find the agent’s maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). In this case discrimination, for there is no proven reason for the policy.
- Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
- If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
The Kantian argument against the ban on gays in the military can be summed up in the philosophers own words in saying, “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.”
