4 marines cought hazing

[redondomarine]

I just read today in the marine times that 4 marines(all non-rates) were being court martialled for hazing. I look at hazong as something that brings a group of people together. I just wanted to here what other peoples views on hazing are. In my eyes as long as it doesn't get anyone killed or seriously injured then whats the problem. Is there anyone else who thinks hazing should be alowed?

[a. enders]

Seems to me you got it backwards.I don't care if it's "meant" or not,some dude hits me while other guys are holding me back or whatever,soon as I get a chance,he's gettin' it back.And if they do real stupid **** (once read a rumor about tar,nails,and lighter fluid)it just alienates the person and breaks apart the unit (or so it would seem).Just seems more reasonable to have the DIs be pricks and let the recruits bond that way.
Bottom line after all the blah,hazing is idiocy,it's "it was done to me so I'll do it to you" mentality,and it accomplishes nothing.

[papabear]

Perhaps we should define what hazing is?

I'm not sure I have a clear understanding of what hazing is, but I'll offer the following reflections.

It might be useful to distinguish "hazing" from the sort of non-official punishment administered by NCOs in the "Old Army" that Col. Hackworth talks about in About Face; this was used in order to bring soldiers in line for minor infractions without resorting to what were considered more extreme measures not proportionate to the offense, namely an official court martial. As far as I know, this form of punishment was not physical, but psychological--using the threat of force rather than force itself. Let us set aside the question of whether this form of punishment is licit, and just accept for the moment that it is not the same as hazing.

In addition, "hazing" might be distinguished from the sort of mental assaults that used to be(?) part and parcel of Boot Camp, in which individual identity is broken down so that a form of obedience may be developed, along with a sense of unit cohesion. How far this distinction is valid, I don't know, because I don't have first-hand experience of the old-style of Boot Camp.

Finally, perhaps a distinction can be made between "hazing" which involves physical assault or violence, resulting in some injury, and "hazing" which is psychological only. With respect to the first, it is perhaps obvious that "hazing" is unjust and therefore to be forbidden. With respect to the second, even if no physical assault or harm is involved, there seems to be good reason to forbid it. First of all, if it is done by an NCO and is not the same as the unofficial form of punishment by a NCO mentioned above, insofar as there is no just reason for it, then it is an abuse of authority. In addition, any form of punishment that might fall under that category, but is carried out instead by men of the same rank, seems to be unjust--I don't think they would have the competent authority to carry out such punishment, and such acts may lead to the undermining of discipline and the chain of command. Furthermore, acts which (psychologically) degrade the individual are disrespectful and injure his dignity, even if they are done in order to achieve some supposed good (obedience?), and are therefore wrong, being directly opposed to the good of the individual or unit. [Some harm is done through this kind of action, even if it's not physical.]

Just some opening considerations...

[redondomarine]

Hazing is any conduct whereby a military member, regardless of rank, without proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless of rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or harmful.

That is the official stand on hazing. I figure as long as it is done in fun(for both parties) i dont see a problem. most of my friends agree with me on this. I never felt like i was part of the group until i got my b-day hazing. Just something me and my friends started doing. On whos ever b-day everyone hits him in the arm for every year. I think it has brought us together.

If that is taken litteraly could it also mean that when a staff sergean send the PFC just out of boot camp to supply to pich up a BA1100November with string attachment, wouldn't he be hazing the PFC. The way I see it the act of hazing doesn't bring teams together, but afterwards when every one is sitting around joking about it, it does bring them closer together.

[papabear]

"Hazing is any conduct whereby a military member, regardless of rank, without proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless of rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or harmful."

Then the question is whether "cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or harmful" acts are evil in themselves, or if they're evil/wrong only because someone doesn't consent.

Cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, harmful usually mean that something objectively good is violated; consequently, such acts are intrinsically wrong, even if people consent to them, because the good is violated. So the question is, is there an objective good, or not? If good is only what we define, with no connection whatsoever to reality, then a lot of things we commonly accept as being wrong are not really such. They're wrong only because people with power define it as so. Either the good is something "objective" or it's not--if it's not, then what difference would consent make?

A similar case: the two consenting adults who engage in S&M
The opinion among many is that as long as the two adults consent, S&M is "ok". Is there something to be said for S&M being wrong, even if the parties involved consent?

Or a more extreme case -- it's ok for you to kill me, as long as I consent. Is murder something intrinsically wrong, or not?

Secondly: "If that is taken litteraly could it also mean that when a staff sergean send the PFC just out of boot camp to supply to pich up a BA1100November with string attachment, wouldn't he be hazing the PFC."

I'm not sure what this means.

"The way I see it the act of hazing doesn't bring teams together, but afterwards when every one is sitting around joking about it, it does bring them closer together."

Then wouldn't it be the case that the act in itself doesn't bring about the good intended (unit cohesion), but is only indirectly linked to the effect? In this case, a consequentialist argument of the end justifying the means can't even be made.

[Vance]

''DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!?''

[papabear]

I ran across this tonight -- this may be of interest for those exploring this topic:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/recruit.htm

[JiJoMacLE45]

When I got out of the academy I spent my entire time on FTO being hazed. I'd have embarrasing e-mails sent through my work account to various supervisors. Every night when I came in for work my locker was throttled. Then I buy a lock, but it didn't stop the guys from using bolt cutters to access my gear. Or one time I was all dressed and ready to head out, I go to slip my weapon into it's holster and realize my entire duty belt had been rearranged for a lefty(I'm right handed). Or they'd hide my kevlar and replace it w/ female body armor(women's kevlar is made with some certain features to accomodate a female's 'assests'). I'd have the bottom lace in each of my boots cut with scissors and have to relace them. Just stupid little stuff that is meant to see how you react. It was to see how far the rest of the guys could push me. I knew it was a game. So you take it and keep your mouth shut and roll with the punches. It's an initiation. Whether it is in the military or law enforcement or pro sports or any other high intensity work environment, you can not expect to walk right into the fray and be excepted. You have to prove yourself. Hazing is part of the proving process.

[Doc]

Bravo Alpha 1100 November: spells balloon. You do it to newbies....just like sending them for boxes of grid squares or cans of squelch. :D There's a fine line between hazing and abuse and Leaders should know what it is. The clintonized military has almost insured the death of hazing and various other forms of tradition and esprit de corps. This is sad. All you military folks want some momma's boy next to you when bullets are flyin'? No, I didn't think you would.....you probably want some hardass who got hazed before the clintonization process started. That dood is the one you want in a ruckus. He'll save your butt. Luckily for me, I didn't get re-educated during the clintonization and I'm as cynical as I ever was and I still make privates do pushups (lots, not 10 or 25, but until they can't move anymore), for sayin "ya", instead of "yes Sergeant"and send them for BA1100Ns with string attachment, 1 each, and boxes of grid squares.

[hood]

Pushups and what JiJoMacLE45 mentioned sound like hazing that's within reason. Pushing nails into one's skin and causing physical injury where the victim can do nothing but sit there is beyond reason. I guess my biggest point is, if the drill instructors aren't able to cause unit comradery and unit cohesion without the need for hazing, aren't they doing a bad job? Why not apply changes to that end instead of making the recruits feel like they need to cause physical injury to each other with nails and tar. At least if the drill instructor is involved, it's a supervised event and proper limitations are enforced.

[JiJoMacLE45]

There is a line that needs to be drawn. I don't see anything wrong with someone getting their jump wings punched into their chest to draw some blood, the reasoning is that you bleed a little b/c so many who have come before you have bled for them. But when your instructor is pounding your wings into your chest b/c he wants to watch you suffer, there's a problem. There has to be a lesson to it. Beating down a recruit for a minor infraction might save on the paperwork, but it is really installing a level of 'espirit de corps' in the recruit. Probably not, it's more then likely going to make him weary of his superiors and make him do his job out of fear, not out of competency. But a controlled level of pain(physical or psychological) and discomfort is where that line has to be drawn. It is about becoming a member of that 'brotherhood' to which you seek to join. I've been on the receiving end and I've been on the giving end as well. I took everything that shoveled out b/c I knew it would earn me the appreciation of the guys who have come before me who had gone through the same thing. They did not do it b/c they did not like me, they did it to see how I'd react. They see you take it, push it aside, and keep moving forward and you're going to earn their respect.

All you military guys know what I'm talking about. Respect might be the most important bond between guys out their in the mix together. You do not even have to necessarily like each other, but if your in the **** and you know the guy next to you or the guy coming to back you up will do everything possible to save your ass and you'd do the same for him, you're going to be that much more effective in your endeavors.

[papabear]

So where is the line to be drawn between hazing and abuse? It seems that most of the recent posts have been rather "consequentialist" or "utilitarian" in the line of reasoning employed--even though action a is "bad", it has an effect b and b is good. And insofar the good of b outweighs the evil of a, doing a is justified. In short, the end justifies the means. Hence, as long as hazing produces good results which outweigh the evil of the actions, it's ok. If it doesn't, then it's abuse. If this is the criteria of what is right and wrong, then we can throw out the window a lot of what is accepted morality (which, by the way, is slowly disappearing). The often-used counter-argument against consequentialism is that consequentialist ethics can justify the murder of some as long as some greater benefit is obtained, e.g. saving a greater number of people.

I hope we're not wasting forum space with this discussion on ethics.

[JiJoMacLE45]

All I can say is ask anyone who has undergone hazing, whether it be as a freshman on the high school football team being made to run laps in his jock, cleats, and helmet until he pukes or a Navy SEAL having his trident punched into his chest. Ask them whether or not it had an positive effect on them in the end, i.e. building that bond between teammates. I think most of us who have endured it would say that while at the time it might not have been fun, it is one of those things that was necessary. In it's simplest form, boot camp is a form of hazing. Yes, it is a vital learning process, but it is also a breaking down and building back up of a recruit to make them part of the team. You learn and come to hold on high that level of respect by physical and mental discomfort.

The line so to speak is hard to put in once place. Because somethings that might be done in good conscious by one person to teach a guy a lesson, may be done by someone else for the simple sake of being cruel. So in that regard, yes it is hard to say, "okay you can do this, this, and this, but not this because that is excessive." It is not really a black and white or right and wrong situation. Like you said, the ends have to justify the means.

I can tell you from my own experiences, the mental 'head games' are way more effective then the physical ones. I've taken my share of both. I've endured it in high school and college on the football teams and once I became a police officer. The instances that always taught me the lessons were the psychological ploys used by the other guys to try and rattle my cage. They physical stuff, so what, deal with it. As Bruce Willis said "You cowboy the **** up" and keep going. If you want what you're striving for a little hazing is not going to keep you from attaining your goal.

[Scrim]

Amen, JiJo!!

[redondomarine]

the line isn't that hard to find. If it will end up in serious injury or if the act is out of hate or contempt, then that is where the problem starts. Like jijo said, ask anybody who has been through it, 99.9% will say it helped them bond with the team, and feel accepted. Thinking about it now, most people who have been through it talk about it with a smile on their face. When my recruiter made NCO in motor-t his arm went to purple to yellow. He loves that story.