He'd been doing it for 24 years, so his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive--thus I don't blame him at all.

They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier".

> his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive

What does this mean?

To us, continuing to dive seems like an unacceptable risk. To the diver, it seemingly is not.

Along the same vein I believe GP then goes on to say that he does not feel that the diver's perspective is less valid just because he (the GP) doesn't understand it.

Either it's risky, or it isn't? If the diver has good reason to think that it isn't, fair enough. But is that the case?

As someone who's never done cave diving, the perception of risk is going to be higher than the actual risk. 1 time in 24 years is pretty low.

There are a few flags pointed out in these threads - like not telling anyone that he dived..

But if it's not ok to become a soldier if you have kids, that severely limits who can be a soldier. (For example, many soldiers get married and start families during their careers as soldiers. Should they instantly get discharged if that happens? Taken off all possibly dangerous duties?) That doesn't seem like a good idea for society as a whole, since it makes being a soldier a much less attractive career, and any society needs soldiers to defend it.

The argument with cave diving is at least somewhat stronger, since I don't see any pressing need for society as a whole to have a particular number of cave divers, or for cave diving to be an attractive career.

But that's an economic problem, isn't it? Maybe if children stopped working, we couldn't make enough matches? But unless we recognise the morally undesirable, why would we care to change anything?

You can recognise something as morally undesirable, yet for some other reason unavoidable. There are many things that fall into that category.

It's also a slippery slope - if something is needed does that justify all means in getting it? And to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? It's one thing to defend its borders, but is every military action of necessity - as opposed to national will?

Only if you think the need of any society to be able to defend itself is an economic problem.

> to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers?

That depends on what threats we expect to have to deal with.

Also, if you argue that people with children should not be soldiers, you are taking out of the decision loop people who are likely to have a more restrained view of when violence should be used.

Plus, soldiers will see action/danger even when the country is not explicitly at war.

The line of reasoning for firefighters and police officers is likely similar (though IMO the risks in these professions are far more manageable because you're not literally surrounding yourself with people who try to kill you).

In the end I think it's a good thing we talk about these decisions at all and I hope it has not only to do with women (and thus mothers) entering these professions.

It depends on whether your country likes to get involved in wars that don't actually protect their populace, of course.

It means exactly the same, but with millennia of cultural resistance to overcome before you can accept it.

I've never heard any vows include anything about cave diving.