the irrational creepiness of a private military firm

The other day, while attempting to answer a reader's debate question about the use of PMFs in South Korea, I came across the website of Xeros Services.

Xeros supplies men and materiel for war-making, and offers "cross-structural value," "risk mitigation," and "a nuanced approach." Take away the images of surface-to-air missiles and armored personnel carriers, and you might think you're being sold a 401K.  (Take away the website, and you can't even be sure the company is real: they're barely mentioned on the Web, outside of some duplicated Wikipedia entries.)

PMFs are criticized for making conflict too convenient, and it's hard to argue when faced with a sales pitch like this:

"Our 24-7-365 guarantee means we can help you react quickly and decisively to any unexpected developments, no matter the scale. For a small premium you can have complete peace of mind - and we'll handle the paperwork."

Do you want an army at your disposal? Log in with your password, charge your corporate credit card, and a platoon will be delivered to your door.

It's conflict outsourcing, and it's more than a little creepy.

Resolved:The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

The NFL LD topic for March / April 2011 has been released:

Resolved:The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

The United States increasingly depends on private military firms to support its fighting forces around the world. However, that supporting role has become more of a solo act, as firms like Xe (formerly Blackwater) have moved beyond security details or logistics, into combat operations in everything but name--and with problematic results.

This raises several questions. Are private military firms effective, or even necessary? Are they legitimate--whether under U.S.law or under international law? Will their reach and influence continue to expand in a perpetual War on Terror, and, if so, what will be the costs? To whom are private military firms accountable? To whom are they loyal--especially when many of their employees or shareholders aren't U.S. citizens? Is this the "military industrial complex" Eisenhower warned about? Are we seeing the rise of shadowy corporate governance? Is "private security contractor" a mere euphemism for "mercenary?"

Expect security, justice, peace, international law, the social contract, Just War Theory, and corporatism to crop up in discussions. Also, expect huge criterial clash: the word "justified" isn't synonymous with "just."

Analysis and links, as always, are forthcoming--and, as always, your comments and questions are critical.

Added 2/2: A look at some definitions.

Added 2/3: Some initial Aff arguments mostly based on effectiveness considerations.

Added 2/13: More arguments and analysis for the Affirmative, based on military necessity.

Added 2/24: A formative list of value and criterion pairs.

Added 3/7: How postmodern developments change the nature of war.

"agent morality" and corporate ethics

Dennis Quinn and Thomas Jones, in "An Agent Morality View of Business Policy," offer a perspective that might work for an Aff on the most recent LD resolution. Applying four "minimalist" moral principles--don't harm others, respect others' autonomy, don't lie, and honor your promises--they note that, unless corporations follow these practices, the market cannot operate efficiently.

In other words, morals come first, both for principals--owners--and, by extension, their agents--managers. Thus, there is a good normative reason to hold the actions of corporations to the same moral standards to which we hold the actions of individuals.

Agents and principals cannot claim that the obligation to maximize profits comes first, because moral rules are "antecedent to the contract between the principal and the agent and cannot be suspended by agreement between them."

So, the next time someone claims that "the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits," argue that the normative structure of capitalism assumes a basic set of moral principles to which corporations, acting through their agents, must adhere.

value and criterion structures for the January-February LD topic: the actions of corporations

If you're going to run Aff or Neg on the "actions of corporations" resolution, what should your value and criterion be? Reader Soccerbud points out that most of the things I've written about the topic so far discuss the subject either implicitly, briefly, or obliquely. This post should change all that.

The following are value and criterion structures I've either heard in rounds or thought about. As always, fire away in the comments. Critique these or suggest others. (Updated 1/18/07).

Affirmative Value / Criterion Structures

V: Societal Welfare
C: Utilitarianism
The resolution concerns actions as the focus of moral concern. Thus, a consequentialist framework. Utilitarianism works for any moral agent, since it looks at results rather than focusing on the agent's inherent properties. It's not necessary to show that a corporation is morally on par with an individual, only that the actions of corporations are morally on par. Utility is broad enough to cover both.
Strategy for Success: Be sure to show how Util leads to SW. Watch out for the "50.01% can kill 49.99%" response, an oversimplification of Util. Learn about the nuances and varieties of Utilitarianism.


V:Societal Welfare
C: Morality
Simple: morality is good because it holds society together. (There may be social contract implications lurking beneath the surface of this structure.) If we uphold morality, we have to uphold it for all moral agents, including corporations.
Strategy for Success: Some argue that the resolution doesn't require any particular moral theory. Fine. Be ready to defend all sorts of moral systems, then, if you go with a generic criterion. Also, if you're going to claim a benefit--"societal welfare"--you'd better have a darn good argument why morality is either a necessary or sufficient condition. If the Neg can show that SW can be achieved in the absence of morality (especially when applied to corporations), your V/C is hosed.


V: Morality
C: The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, moral actions are good in and of themselves. Furthermore, Kantian theory applies to all rational agents, which, it can be argued, corporations are. Thus, corporations and individuals both can adopt the Categorical Imperative as their moral guidepost.
Strategy for Success: Many people misunderstand Kant and the Categorical Imperative, so make sure you do the research first.


V: The Common Good.
C: Deliberative Democracy.
The resolution concerns the moral aim of society, and the balanced or opposed interests of individuals and corporations. If Delib D. is the moral means to the common good, and corporations threaten Delib D. when they are granted different moral standards, then we ought to hold them to the same standards as individuals.
Strategy for Success: Requires quality research and a quality debater. Not for beginners.


Negative Value / Criterion Structures

V: Freedom
C: Capitalism
Let corporations exist free of the fetters of morality. Take the stance of Milton Friedman: The profit motive yields good results. Capitalism makes the world a better place, since it respects and allows for individual and economic (and, some argue, thus political) freedom.
Strategy for Success: Watch out for those liberal judges who get a blister whenever libertarianism enters the room.

Update: Reader Nicole writes,

I think my biggest argument against this would be to take a hard-line Objectivist stance on it: that corporations are still held to individual standards because Capitalism is not a wild card to do what you will, there are still codes of conduct that you must abide by that are inherent in conducting in a fully Capitalist manner. Rand contends that in order for a corporation to fill its goals (profits) and to have the beneficial impacts (individual/economic/political freedom) actions must still be conducted in an ethical manner, because otherwise all you have are a bunch of people running around screwing
other people in the name of gain. Objectivism also contends (and I know this is a fairly common argument at the moment) that all rights of corporations go back to the rights of the individuals. Peikoff esplains it fairly well when he states:

'A corporation is a union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavor. It exemplifies the principle of free association, which is
an expression of the right to freedom. Any attributes which corporations have are attributes (or rights) which the individuals have - including the right to combine in a certain way, offer products under certain terms, and deal with others according to certain rules, instance, limited liability.

An individual can say to the store keeper, "I would like to have credit, but I put you on notice that if I can't pay, you can't attach my home - take it or leave it." The storekeeper is free to accept these terms, or not. A corporation is a cooperative productive endeavor which gives a similar warning explicitly. It has no mystical attributes, no attributes that don't go back the rights of individuals, including their right of free association.'

To me (being an Objectivist and a libertarian) it's always funny when Objectivism can be used to fight its modern interpretations--that capitalism is a blank slate for action.

To that I would add, this block only works when you're running an Aff compatible with Objectivist morality. If you're running "societal welfare" or another more communitarian standard, no dice.

V: Morality
C: Coherent Moral Standards
For moral standards to be upheld, they must be coherent, otherwise we have no grounds to uphold them--or, on the other side, to be held to them. By showing that corporations and individuals are ontologically different and that it is incoherent to apply individual moral standards to them, we thus show that the resolution threatens the concept of morality itself.
Strategy for Success: Whenever you defend a difference between corporations and individuals, make sure it is a morally significant difference.


V: Morality
C: Moral Agency
For moral standards to be upheld, they must applied to moral agents; in other words, moral agency grounds any notion of morality. By showing that corporations are not moral agents, we show that the resolution simply does not provide for a moral outcome.
Strategy for Success: This is similar to the previous strategy. It requires patient and careful argumentation that there are fundamental differences between corporations and individuals. Don't adopt an "only humans are moral agents" standpoint. It's too restrictive--for example, it's conceivable that Mr. Spock could be a moral agent, even though Vulcans aren't human. (Conceivable to a philosopher-nerd. But that's you, isn't it?)


V: Societal Welfare
C: Nihilism
Recounted here:

Nihilism, as the first of the loss of ideals, may be a state of hideous anarchy, but it is also the necessary transition to health. If, instead of relapsing into the idealistic source of evil, the eyes of mankind are strengthened to look boldly at the facts of existence, then will take place what [Nietzsche] calls the Transvaluation of all Values, and truth will be founded on the naked, imperishable reality.... When a man has faced this truth calmly and bravely and definitely, then the whole system of morality which has been imposed upon society by those who regarded life as subordinate to an eternal ideal outside of the flux and contrary to the stream of human desires and passions -- then the whole law of good and evil which was evolved by the weak to protect themselves against those who were fitted to live masterfully in the flux, crumbles away; that man has passed Beyond Good and Evil.

Strategy for Success: If you don't understand Nietzsche (way to be sure: you can't spell "Nietzsche" without peeking), and if your judge isn't hip, don't run nihilism. And, as a general rule, no Nietzsche before noon.

[Still a work in progress. Your comments are appreciated.]

ideas for the Aff, January-February LD topic (the actions of corporations...)

Like many trying to craft their Aff cases for this resolution, reader jay is stumped.

there are so many possibilities for the neg but i dont see any good ideas for aff. does anyone know of any?

The only way i see as of right now is to say that a corporation acts as an individual or in society's eyes, is an individual, but i dont see any other way

Also, just a thought, but i think it would be foolish to use any particular moral theory in your case because your opponent will attack that particular standard rather than your case...for either side, its better, probably, to just say that there is one without specifically naming it...

but yeah aff ideas?

He's come to the right place to get un-stumped. Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a lot of great ideas for the Aff to run with. Here's a quick rundown, as well as my answer to the "moral theory" question.

1. The legal presumption of "corporate personhood" is morally coherent as well. Corporations are rational beings (a la Kant) and/or intentional actors, unified in their being despite comprising diverse entities (see Peter A. French). Just like humans. Therefore, we should hold them to the same standards.

2. Since corporations act through and affect individuals, their actions ought to be held to the same standards as individuals. The different organizational context of the corporation does not warrant different standards.

3. Ethical consumerism. We hold corporations to moral standards by supporting them with our money, either through purchase or investment, or by not supporting them, by shopping elsewhere or by boycotts or other social pressure.

I'm sure readers can come up with other directions for the Aff to take.

Now, to the "moral theory" question. Should we promote a specific moral theory, or leave that undefined? As jay cautions, we may end up spending valuable time defending the standards instead of arguing on case.

This is one of the toughest calls with this resolution. If you don't adopt a moral framework (consequentialism via utility or something similar; ethical egoism; deontology via Kant or Rawls; virtue ethics; etc.) you risk opening yourself to whatever standards the Neg applies. You're probably already making moral arguments implicitly in your case; by selecting a moral theory as your criterion, you make those arguments explicit for the judge.

Secondly, if you don't adopt a moral framework, you'll have a tough time with any neg case running "morality is impossible because..." You'll have to spend the time arguing for morality anyway, so why not have your morality ready-made?

Third, the word "ought" presumes there's some sort of moral reason for holding them to the same standards. That reason is based on a moral theory. What is your theory?

I hope these quick thoughts are useful. Questions? Comments? Fervent disagreements? Let the discussion commence.

the Categorical Imperative and the corporation

Reader euan hypothesizes the consequences of applying the Categorical Imperative to corporations.

Well, the actions of corporations are so much more complex than the actions of individuals and are almost never based on a pure, or moral, motive. Corporations, in almost every situation, are based around profit (they are not ALL based around profit, as some are charity organizations.) Corporations don't exist to do what is "right," they don't exist to fulfill their moral duty. Human life, on the other hand, is centered around becoming MORE human, and we exist to find a deeper humanity. We do this by doing what is right, without question. Humans can be held to moral standards because we exist to become more moral, more human. Corporations exist for a different purpose than to be moral and/or more human, therefore their actions can't be held to those same moral standards that dictate the actions of individuals.

Hm . . . Humans strive to be more human. Corporations strive to make a profit. A corporation cannot take an action because the members of the corporation decide that the action is "right." The actions of corporations always take into account their shareholders, profit, budget, etc.. They are never and can never be pure. Therefore, the actions of a corporation can't be moral, so they ought not to be held to the same moral standard as the actions of individuals. Or something.

Any ideas?

First, I'm not sure that the greater complexity of corporations is a knock-down argument for their moral "differentness." Think about how complex a human being is, how complicated the decisions we make every day, all the obligations we place upon ourselves, or have placed upon us--legal, moral, familial, societal, to name a few--and you start to realize that, in euan's words, humans "are never and can never be pure." Does this mean their actions can't be moral? I think not. A moral standard is a goal for action, and a failure to reach a goal doesn't necessarily invalidate the goal. (The confusion between what humans--or corporations--do and ought to do is common in these arguments.)

Also, does Kant's morality derive from a notion of "purpose?" That claim requires justification. It seems to me to come more from a notion of "good will," which is good in and of itself, the will of an autonomous agent.

Kantian morality might apply to corporations thusly: they should act in a way that they can universally will for every other corporation to act. However, if it can be shown that corporations are not autonomous agents, but are rather inherently "heteronomous," then the Categorical Imperative doesn't apply, and their actions should be held to a different standard.

do corporations have only one goal?

Continuing the discussion of the current LD resolution, one of the arguments I repeatedly heard this past weekend was that corporations exist only to make a profit, or, in a broader generalization, that they have only one goal. The affs I watched either didn't bother to refute, or had weak responses to, either claim.

The first is rather easily defeated by pointing out the existence of not-for-profit corporations.

The second also strikes me as defeasible. Is the only--or primary--goal of McDonald's, for example, to earn a profit? Could it be argued that McDonald's profit-making is a means to a different end: political power, world domination, social transformation, or other goals I can't imagine? Do we take corporations at their word, and look at their mission statement for their goal(s), or do we apply a functionalist framework to all corporations regardless of their stated aims? Or, even further, do we treat corporate mission statements--and even the profit-seeking motive--as false consciousness?

In other words, do we take a descriptive stance--corporations actually act this way, so that's what their goals are--or a normative stance, claiming that corporations all act in the way Milton Friedman says?

According to a new LA Times article as distilled through the Seattle Times, corporate actions can belie their intentions, and even undermine other actions of that same corporation.

At the Gates Foundation, blind-eye investing has been enforced by a firewall it has erected between its grant-making side and its investing side. The goals of the former are not allowed to interfere with the investments of the latter. With the exception of tobacco companies, asset managers do not avoid investments in enterprises whose activities conflict with the foundation's mission to do good.

Is the goal of the Gates Foundation to save the world or to maximize its wealth?

Yes. Or no. Or "false either-or." What do you think?

Update: Jason Kuznicki responds.

in which I cancel AT&T long distance service

Many years ago, when I first moved into my own bachelor pad, the kindly folks at AT&T called to warn me about the dangers of slamming, encouraging me to sign up for their service. Nestled safely in Ma Bell's bosom, I'd never have to fear the guerilla tactics of sleazy corporations.

That is, until AT&T turned sleazy.

Their One Rate plan, which I originally signed up for, was perfect: no play, no pay. If you didn't make any long distance calls--and believe me, I didn't--you paid nothing. But one day Ma Bell realized that I wasn't paying anything, ever, and they changed the plan. Now the One Rate plan required a $5 minimum charge. When I got the letter, I called to cancel. "Don't do that," they pleaded, their sweet, soothing voices lulling me into a hypnagogic state. "We have a new plan, the One Rate Simple plan. It's just like the old One Rate plan."

Sucker that I was, I said okay, fine, whatever. Then six months later, post-SBC merger, I got another letter. "Beginning with bills issued on or after July 1, 2006, a $5 monthly usage minimum charge will apply to the AT&T One Rate Simple plan."

That was it. That, and the way AT&T treats its customers' private information: as a plaything for NSA hacks, data miners, and God knows who else.

Maybe AT&T has gotten too many calls from jaded customers, or maybe the merger has killed corporate morale, or maybe a combination of the above. When I called to cancel, the operator--I'll call him "Ray"--didn't even try to stop me, offer me a different service, or even ask why I was quitting. He just typed and chatted away, complaining that he "has to do everything now," and asking me all sorts of questions about where I work, what my summer plans are, and anything else that might be of use to NSA flunkies. (He even promised to send a check for the $6.82 credit I've carried since forever, the fifth such promise I've been given.)

Am I ever glad I quit. If you're with AT&T, you should, too. Don't pay a cent to a company that respects nothing but its bottom line.



Update: Miracle of miracles, the check arrived two weeks later. $6.82 doesn't buy much solace, but it does afford a goodly amount of trans-fatty acids and high-fructose corn syrup.