The Morality of Desertion

USA Today has an interesting article about American soldiers who have deserted and sought refuge in Canada rather than return to Iraq or Aghanistan.

In Canada once more, U.S. soldiers fleeing a war, By Judy Keen, USA TODAY
TORONTO — Patrick Hart came here in 2005, when he couldn't face a second deployment to Iraq. A U.S. Army sergeant with almost 10 years of active duty, he would rather stay in Canada forever than return to a war he thinks is wrong.
Hart, 36, knows that some people think he is a traitor, but he has no regrets. "I've bled for my country, I've sweated for my country, I've cried myself to sleep for my country — which is a lot more than some people who are passing judgment on me have done," he says. "I would rather go sit in prison than go to Iraq." [Continue reading]

Soldiers who enrolled in the military thinking they would help defend their country and instead were shipped out to Iraq or Afghanistan to help extend the American empire face both a cost-benefit and a moral dilemma. The costs of deserting are immense: loss of income and veteran benefits, the threat of years in prison, permanent separation from family and friends, exile to a not always hospitable country, difficulty in finding black market jobs and ensuing poverty, plus opprobrium from countless people who call the deserters cowards and traitors. By comparison, the costs of remaining in the military, even if this entails being sent to a war zone seem much smaller: Soldiers have a small chance of being killed or injured and may endure stressful and uncomfortable situations from time to time. But most would return home unscathed to a hero's welcome, with good money in their bank account and attractive career opportunities. From a strict benefit-cost standpoint, desertion from the U.S. military in the 21st century does not make any sense. As expected, the vast majority of soldiers respond to these incentives and do not desert. Yet, some do it anyway. Why?

Deserters invariably point to the wars being wrong, unjust, based on lies, or to the harm they would be inflicting on innocent people. Their behavior cannot be understood as the outcome of a simple benefit-cost calculation. Instead their decision is based on morality: they have concluded that returning to Iraq or Afghanistan to do the job they would be asked to perform is morally wrong.

Cost-benefit analysis is amoral: killing is fine if you get paid enough to compensate you for your trouble and are exempt from criminal prosecution. Stealing is fine if you don't expect to get caught and the stolen objects are worth enough. Decisions based on costs and benefits are good if the benefits are larger than the costs. Sometimes relatively small changes in the costs or benefits can tilt the balance toward different decisions. By contrast, morality deals in absolutes: there are no shades of grey between right and wrong. A war is just or unjust and one's participation in it is justified or unjustified. There is no in between. When the moral decision conflicts with the beneficial decision, morality sometimes wins. As far as I can tell, the ability to make moral decisions is a uniquely human capability. And we're better off because of it even if this contradicts some elegant economic theories.