Lesson 15

Ethics

Lesson Objective: Analyze the relationship between ethics and contemporary military problems, including considerations related to the use of military force.
Desired Learning Outcomes:
  1. Identify the ethical dilemmas and their impact on contemporary profession of arms.

    2. "Michael Walzer defines the war convention as the set of norms, customs, professional codes, legal precepts, religious and philosophical principles, and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgment of military conduct…At the heart of the war convention is the just war tradition…" from which the Law of Armed Conflict is derived…The just war tradition, which provides the essential organizing principles for military ethics…is divided into two discrete units: jus ad bellum (‘the justice of war’) and jus in bella (‘justice in war’)." [Rosenthal]

     

     
  2. Comprehend the moral basis for the just war concepts and their link to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

    3. Just cause – the protection and preservation of value.

    Right Authority – fully authorized representative of a sovereign political entity.

    Right Intention – intent must be in accordance with the just cause and not territorial aggrandizement, intimidation or coercion.

    Proportionality of Ends – overall good greater than the harm done

    Last resort – no other means available for resolution

    Reasonable hope of success – prudential calculation of likelihood of success

    The Aim of Peace – establishment of peace

    The moral basis for the just war is linked to the LOAC because the just cause concept frames the treatment of civilians and the use of proportionality of force and the limiting of weapons etc. The desire is to make war more reasonable.

     

     
  3. Apply moral reasoning from both the "just cause" and "justice in war" considerations to recent and potential military operations.

Jus ad bellum for "Desert Shield/Storm"

Just cause – the protection and preservation of Kuwaiti Freedom

Right Authority – fully authorized representative of a sovereign political entity. (Presidential authorization and UN concurrence)

Right Intention – intent must be in accordance with the just cause and not territorial aggrandizement, intimidation or coercion. – Only objective was liberating Kuwaitis and access to the vast oil fields of the Middle East

Proportionality of Ends – overall good greater than the harm done. Expressed desire not to destroy Kuwaiti property or civilians, desire to liberate.

Last resort – no other means available for resolution. Long negotiations led up to the conflict. Only the please of the Kuwaiti people necessitated urgent action.

Reasonable hope of success – prudential calculation of likelihood of success. Planned for the restoration of Kuwait sovereignty and obvious advantage against the Iraqis.

The Aim of Peace – establishment of peace. Peace for Kuwait was reestablished.

Jus in Bello

Proportionality of Means – Arms limits, bans on certain weapons. Concern was expressed for the use of Chemical weapons and the extensive use of "smart weapons" to avoid collateral damage.

Non-combatant Protection - Greatly stressed Geneva law and the protection of POWs, civilians and hospitals.

 
Questions for Study and Discussion:
DLO 1:
    1. What are some of the relationships between the values of our contemporary democratic society and the traditional values of the profession of arms? Are they coincidental? Are they complementary? Are they antithetical?

      2. "Our Western value system of right and wrong is based primarily on what Jesus taught concerning the origin and value of human life, augmented by the Old Testament lawgivers and prophets. This is what we commonly call the Judeo-Christian tradition…The great concepts of justice, mercy, compassion, service, and freedom are immediate derivations of this central distinction between good and evil as received from our Judeo-Christian heritage…The moral justification for our profession is embedded in the Constitution – ‘to provide for the Common Defense.’ We are that segment of the American society which is set apart to provide for the defense of the remainder of that society…As military people our objective is not to promote war, but to preserve peace and to protect life…Ours is an honorable profession with an ethical purpose entirely consistent with our basic [Judeo-Christian] view that whatever protects and enhances life is good." [Buckingham]

      "Military institutions form a repository of moral resource that should always be a strength within a state." [Rosenthal]

      "The purposes for which armies fight and the ways in which they do so reflect the values of the societies which send them to war in the first place…Armies and warriors have never been passive recipients of social values…Today’s military establishment is an active force in shaping and sustaining a set of values that is central to our modern political and social life." [Rosenthal]

       
    2. Is American society "in decline" or is progressing morally, and what reasons can you give to oppose either judgment?

      3. "Concerned observers point to some of the ways the social fabric has been unraveling in recent decades – with signs of greater entropy to come. Most worrying of all are facts about teenagers. Drug and alcohol abuse are up, gangs are everywhere. We are daily numbed by stories of sociopathic violence. Sexually transmitted disease is a rampant problem. Teenage suicide has tripled since the sixties. Teenage pregnancy has doubled and now nearly one in every three babies is born to an unwed mother." [Sommers]

      "Like so many other social institutions, the military profession suffers today from a spiritual malaise that undercuts our collective confidence, saps our energy, and produces a cynicism that seems to feed on itself. The problems may be due in no small part to confusion about values." [Narel]

      None of ninety elementary school social studies books dealing with modern American social life mentioned the word ‘marriage,’ ‘wedding,’ ‘husband,’ or ‘wife’…Since television presents a similarly skewed version of the world and because so many families are in shambles, many young people today have only the vaguest acquaintance with a common moral culture that was once available to all…We can see the effects of moral illiteracy in the increasingly casual nature of crime…Many young murderers sincerely do not understand what they have done is wrong or why they should be punished…The light of civilization has gone out." [Kilpatrick]

      "Consider how we deny the social catastrophe called ‘the breakdown of the traditional family.’ Sixteen-year-old unwed mothers on drugs are ‘non-traditional parenting teens.’ A mother with two children she cannot take care of and a third on the way, and no husband anywhere in sight is an ‘alternative family.’ There are no more ‘broken homes’ anymore. We speak blandly and sometimes even glowingly of ‘single parenting.’" [Sommers]

      "Recent studies show clearly that the absence of a father from the home is linked to a high incidence of violence in male children. Seventy percent of juveniles in long term correctional custody grew up in homes that had no fathers…The amount of social violence is inversely proportional to the amount of fathering: less fathering, much more social violence." [Sommers]

       

    3. To what extent should ethical education be part of an officer’s preparation for a commission, and is ethical education practicable at senior service schools?—why or why not?

"Truly professional military leaders engage in habitual and serious ethical reflection as a matter of course. To do one’s job well, it is unavoidable…In a profession where duty, obligation, and responsibility weigh so heavily – and where life and death are at the core of activity – the imperative to engage in ethical reflection is hard to overstate." [Rosenthal]

"Professional military officers are the war convention’s guardians, consumers, and arbiters in the first instance. Because of this special standing in relation to the war convention, military officers have a duty to confront it head-on and to address it in a sustained and systematic way." [Rosenthal]

"The indulgent exhibition of machines – machines with unprecedented lethality – comes precariously close to excessive violence and threatens to ignore the just war tradition’s plea for restraint and virtuous conduct on the part of soldiers, even in war." [The Road to Basra]

"Moral and ethical education must comprise a program of life-long learning, beginning in the training of officer-candidates and in the service academies, and continuing according to a logical plan through mid- and upper-level ranks at the war colleges and command-training schools." [Rosenthal]

"The officer corps must consider [virtues] and do so in a sustained fashion within the professional military educational establishment…not to suggest a usurpation of civilian authority but rather an enhancement of it, by engendering a vigorous military voice – as one among the many existing within a democratic society that seeks peace with justice." [Rosenthal]

 
DLO 2:
    1. Do the conditions of modern warfare and of "low intensity conflict" preclude the usual considerations and stipulations of jus in bello?

Force employment must be Jus Ad Bellum (just war) in order to be ethically and militarily sound that is it must have:

Just cause – the protection and preservation of value.

Right Authority – fully authorized representative of a sovereign political entity.

Right Intention – intent must be in accordance with the just cause and not territorial aggrandizement, intimidation or coercion.

Proportionality of Ends – overall good greater than the harm done

Last resort – no other means available for resolution

Reasonable hope of success – prudential calculation of likelihood of success

The Aim of Peace – establishment of peace
2. How can the profession of arms ensure that its practices are consistent with its preachings about morality in warfare?

Civilian authority, according to Caspar Weinberger, should apply the following six-part test before committing US military forces to an international crisis.

Force should not be used unless "the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to the national interests of the US or its allies"

If the decision is made that troops should be committed then "we should do so wholeheartedly and with clear intention of winning"

We should have clearly defined political and military objectives

The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed must continually be reassessed and adjusted.

Before troops are committed, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their representatives.

The commitment of US forces should be a last resort.
3.What are some of the relationships between the values of our contemporary democratic society and the traditional values of the profession of arms? Are they coincidental? Are they complementary? Are they antithetical?

"The purposes for which armies fight and the ways in which they do so reflect the values of the societies which send them to war in the first place…Armies and warriors have never been passive recipients of social values…Today’s military establishment is an active force in shaping and sustaining a set of values that is central to our modern political and social life." [Rosenthal]

 
    1. Just war concepts are oriented toward the status quo of existing nations. How should we balance these concepts with the democratic principles of freedom and self-determination?
DLO 3:
    1. To what extent should we be willing to accept military limitations in the name of, and to serve the purposes of, morality?

      2. "The right use of military force is part of the larger question of the right use of power by the political community and is inseparable from it…In this context, military intervention across national boundaries is not an issue to be addressed in isolation but only in the larger forum of the life of the political community, the nation." [Johnson]

    2. What is your legal and moral response to the service member who contends that in warfare, "there is no substitute for victory"? At any price? By any standard?

      3. … I think it should be an absolute rule among military people that ends do not justify means. Nor that means justify ends. Both ends and means must be consistent with our fundamental values. Honorable ends can not be achieved by dishonorable means, nor do honorable means justify dishonorable or unethical ends. (Buckingham)

      …"It is of the essence of geopolitics", says Paul Johnson, "to be able to distinguish between different degrees of evil" The just war proposition, and the very idea of strategy, suggest that not only that we can make such distinctions – but that we must.

      As St Augustine expressed it , "He then, who prefers what is right to what is wrong, and what is well-ordered to what is perverted, sees that the peace of unjust men is not worthy to be called peace in comparison with the peace of the just.(Toner)

       
    3. When, if at all, are ethics situational?

Ethics should never be situational Ethics are however cultural (p 228) and modified historically by situations or experiences. Many cultures have differing ethics based upon societal experience and religious belief. The collective ethics are built upon some set of basic beliefs. In this country the "Judeo-Christian" ethics are the basis for our common law, the constitution and many of the institutions of our society. Situations sometimes change ethics though such as changes in the interpretation of religious doctrine (e.g. the Bible). American ethics today are perhaps more based in "pluralism" than religion. "Live and let live" is prevalent today.

"The concept of a professional typically involves binding oneself to particular principles. Support and defense of the Constitution requires fealty [under all circumstances] to the principles, to the values, proclaimed by that document." [Narel]

"So can we make any general rules for ethical conduct within the military profession? I think so. Essentially, what is right is that which enhances the accomplishment of our basic purpose, the common defense, provided that it is consistent with our overall view of the value and dignity of all human life and that the means to accomplish it are acceptable. Or, ask there questions: Does the action we are about to take or the policy under consideration contribute to the national defense? Is it consistent with the protection and enhancement of life? Are both end and means consistent with our national values?" [Buckingham]