Why We Need More Spocks

In a recent post on a military Facebook page, someone wrote:
“The people who fail to realize that medical and religious accommodations are part of standards are the same type of people who would have blindly followed the ‘order’ resulting in the My Lai Massacre. They are people who can’t think for themselves and can’t decipher between right and wrong.”

It’s raw, emotional, and pointed. It’s also making a serious claim: that people who misunderstand standards would, under pressure, commit or abet atrocities. That’s a powerful warning—but does the logic hold?

Below, I’ll unpack the reasoning, show where it breaks, examine the valid core, and argue for what the military actually needs: more Spocks—leaders trained to apply disciplined logic under emotional and institutional stress.

---

What the Claim Actually Says

The statement asserts three connected ideas:

1. Premise A: Some people don’t grasp that medical and religious accommodations are part of the standards (policy, regulation, or doctrine).
2. Premise B: Those same people would have blindly followed the order that led to the My Lai Massacre.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, they can’t think for themselves and can’t distinguish right from wrong.

It’s a moral and cognitive equivalence claim: a bureaucratic failure (misreading standards) = an ethical collapse (obeying an unlawful order).

---

Where the Logic Breaks

1) False Equivalence / Category Error
Confusing a policy misunderstanding with complicity in atrocity collapses two very different categories. Failing to understand accommodations is not logically equivalent to endorsing or executing unlawful orders. The stakes, intent, and moral context are not the same.

2) Overgeneralization (and a Slippery Slope)
The claim implies that rigid rule-following leads to blind obedience to any order. That’s an unsupported leap. Some rigid rule-followers will still refuse unlawful orders; some flexible thinkers may still fail under pressure. The inference from “policy rigidity” to “would commit war crimes” is a sweeping generalization.

3) Ad Hominem Leap
The conclusion labels the target group as people who “can’t think for themselves” or “can’t decipher right from wrong.” That’s a character attack, not a reasoned argument. Logical critique should focus on beliefs and behavior, not global judgments of a person’s moral faculties.

4) Hasty Moral Certainty
The claim presumes knowledge of future moral conduct based on a snapshot of policy reasoning today. That’s a hasty generalization about people’s likely choices in complex, high-pressure, value-laden contexts.

Bottom line: The original statement contains legitimate frustration, but its argument structure is logically weak. It does, however, point to something important.

---

The Kernel of Truth: Uncritical Obedience Is Dangerous

Strip away the hyperbole, and we see a real insight: uncritical deference to authority—in administration or combat—can enable harm.

• In peacetime bureaucracy, this shows up as a refusal to apply lawful accommodations that are built into the standards themselves.
• In wartime, it can show up as a refusal to question unlawful or unethical orders.

In other words, the psychological habit of “obey first, think later” is risky in every domain. That’s a valid warning.

---

A More Logical, Still-Forceful Formulation

If we want the argument to be accurate and persuasive, try this:
“When people fail to recognize that medical and religious accommodations are part of established standards, it reflects a tendency toward uncritical rule-following. That same mindset—when left unchecked and placed under extreme pressure—can contribute to grave moral failures. That’s why we must cultivate disciplined, logical thinking alongside obedience.”

This preserves the core concern (the danger of blind obedience) without the false equivalence or character assault.

---

Standards, Accommodations, and Lawful Orders

Three clarifications leaders should repeat until they’re muscle memory:

1. Accommodations are part of standards. If policy provides lawful medical or religious accommodations, applying them isn’t “bending the rules”—it is the rule.
2. Obedience is not absolute. Military ethics and law require disobedience of unlawful orders. “Just following orders” is not a defense.
3. Judgment bridges the gap. We don’t win by pitting discipline against thinking. We win by training disciplined thinkers who apply law, policy, and ethics under pressure.

---

Why We Need More Spocks

Mr. Spock wasn’t anti-emotion; he was pro-discipline—especially intellectual discipline. He questioned assumptions, analyzed facts, and told the truth even when it challenged the captain. That’s exactly what we need:

• People who ask why before obeying what.
• Leaders who see that exceptions can be part of the rule.
• Units where logic checks are normal, not insubordinate.
• A culture that treats moral reasoning as a warfighting skill, not a soft skill.

We say “adapt and overcome,” then punish adaptation. We brief LOAC, then seldom rehearse the moral decision-making it requires in ambiguous, authority-heavy situations. We want initiative but distrust dissent. That contradiction breeds exactly the kind of unthinking compliance we claim to fear.

---

Practical Ways to Build Spocks (Without Losing Kirks)

If you want more Spocks, train for them:

• The 3-Question Drill (before executing):
  1. Is it lawful?
  2. Is it consistent with governing policy—including accommodations?
  3. What are the foreseeable second-order effects?
• Red-Team the Order: Designate someone to challenge assumptions aloud—briefly, respectfully, and on the clock—before execution.
• Policy Reps, Not Just PT Reps: Short, recurring reps in policy application scenarios (including accommodation cases) so “accommodations are standards” is lived, not lectured.
• After-Action Logic: In AARs, grade the quality of reasoning, not just the outcome. Reward clear logic even when the result is imperfect.

These are small, inexpensive habits that immunize a unit against both bureaucratic rigidity and battlefield moral failure.

---

The Point—and the Limit—of Outrage

The original Facebook post is a flare fired in frustration. It’s right to be angry at unthinking rigidity. But outrage without analysis invites the very error it condemns: feeling in place of thinking.

Emotion can warn us. Only logic can steer us.

We don’t need more barkers or bureaucrats. We need more Spocks—people who can hold the line and hold a thought at the same time.

Because when the order is unclear, the policy is nuanced, or the stakes are high, it won’t be volume or compliance that saves us. It’ll be disciplined reasoning in service of what’s right.

_____________________________

Dave Chamberlin served 38 years in the USAF and Air National Guard as an aircraft crew chief, where he retired as a CMSgt. He has held a wide variety of technical, instructor, consultant, and leadership positions in his more than 40 years of civilian and military aviation experience. Dave holds an FAA Airframe and Powerplant license from the FAA, as well as a Master’s degree in Aeronautical Science. He currently runs his own consulting and training company and has written for numerous trade publications.

His true passion is exploring and writing about issues facing the military, and in particular, aircraft maintenance personnel.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.