Ethics of war, Peace, and Terrorism - Thesis Example

I. Introduction The most important issues to be decided on are the justifications underlying the essentiality of ethics to the military and whether proper ethics training programs are truly needed or productive. These issues pose the question regarding the true meaning of military ethics. Does it imply the instillation in military staff of a wide-ranging morality that encourages them to behave and act in a moral manner? Or does it imply more restrictively to the professional criteria required for the carrying out of their responsibility as service-oriented men and women? Is it really obligatory for military staff to be morally inclined as long as they are competent in their job performance? Are the two independent from each other, or are they interdependent? In other words, are the ethics mandatory of a soldier in his/her moral role similar to those mandated of a civilian, or also called ordinary morality? In the meantime, it is another thing to say that military personnel will have to undertake formal ethics training program, it is fairly another to guarantee that they gain knowledge of the appropriate lessons. Undoubtedly, if inappropriately conducted, ethics training could even be ineffective and counterproductive. It is evident from an investigation of ethics training programs in different national militaries that there is no homogeneity of framework between them and an absence of unity within them. There is as well conflict as to the extent to which the mentioned programs are imperative in the first place. Provided the fact that hardly any Western countries at present enlist their armed forces on operations separately, the absence of unity about what comprises ethical behavior and outlook and how best to train military personnel is possibly a basis for distress (Wyatt, 1990). II. Principles of Military Ethics Training Although there is a hostile disagreement over who must have possession of military ethics training, there is greater agreement concerning the philosophies on which this training should be founded, even though there are those opposing assertions. The first region of conflict concerns the objective to which ethics training is intended. The most normally conveyed outlook among those obligated with the fulfillment of this training is that the goal must be individuals who are capable to deliberate about ethical dilemmas by themselves and take actions independently (Caplow, 1989). Individuals must recognize what they assume is appropriate is more imperative than just obeying commands or giving in to peer pressure. Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a well-known, though questioned, representation of moral ascendancy which have three stages: the pre-conventional stage, which implies that individuals behave appropriately chiefly in order to evade sanction or punishment; a conventional stage, in which they act in response to peer pressure, and are motivated by an apprehension for status; and a post-conventional stage in which individuals make use of their personal reckoning to establish unanimous ethical doctrines of right and wrong, and afterwards conform to them since they have witnessed the legitimacy of principles and become dedicated to them (Wyatt, 1990, 115). Majority of practitioners believe that the objective of ethics training must be to move military personnel up the steps toward the post-conventional level. The goal should be to train military personnel who act morally and ethically, not because they have been ordered to, or for the reason that they believe it will raise their positive image, but because they independently have concluded that it is the appropriate thing to do. If not, they may submit to unprincipled commands or peer pressure (Daft, 1988). Whatever the intended outcome, the framework implemented in majority of armed forces is that of what we refer to as ‘virtue ethics,’ with their rational origins discovered in Aristotle. Fundamentally, virtue ethics pursue to guarantee moral behavior through inculcating particular virtues such as commitment, integrity, and audacity to shape good character. The individual with character will then conduct themselves properly since that is the kind of person s/he is. The benefit, from a military perspective, of this framework is that in warfare there are powerful pressures and inadequate time for profound intellectual contemplation; in such circumstances having a personality who will behave rightly because conditioned responses are significantly pleasing. As a result, several military universities have assumed on a framework founded on Aristotelian virtue ethics. Major case in point is those in the United States. Citing Lieutenant Colonel Wilson, “The US Military Academy takes great pains to instill essentially Aristotelian virtues into the cadets in order to build a character worthy of trust” (Wyatt, 1990, 117); Dr. Cool remarks that the US Air Force Academy, “It’s rather obvious that Aristotle is the intellectual father of the enterprise” (Wyatt, 1990, 117). Notwithstanding their origins, almost all armed forces have generated a number of virtues they assert to be value. These differ from nation to nation and service to service, yet have significant overlap. The ‘Army Values’ of the United States are “loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage” (Galvin, 1989, 41). The lesson that can be gained from this virtue ethics is that ethics training must not be perceived as some addition which one places above other types of military training later on when there seems to be an unused time in the timetable. Ethics training should be perceived as something other than an onerous mandated obligation. To a certain extent it has to be incorporated into military training from a specifically early stage as a primary step of the process of creating professional and ethical soldiers. This as well implies that ethics classes which are sections of the syllabus at military academies could in a number of instances be helpfully pushed forward to emerge earlier than they presently do. It as well implies that ethics has to be assimilated into military traditions and exercises and pre-deployment training, in order that it becomes a slice of normal military life. III. Conclusions When certain influence and power is socially acknowledged as acceptable, particular individuals or groups of people are empowered to take action as a response on the security needs of the society. Provided by this power, their behaviors and actions are habitually accepted as proper; this supposed conformity by members of the society is voluntary. The voluntary conformity originates for an internalized recognition of the normative standard of the society, that is, the expectation to abide by legitimate authority. The normative standard is justified and implemented by the state and its organizations, further than any other organization in our society. Moreover, it has been claimed that we agree to authority pressures since we are inherently social beings; and when we acknowledge the actions of the state as acceptable, we as well confer to the state a portion of our individual power, although we may bear the outcomes of its actions. We acknowledge that legitimacy is an unclear notion until it is associated to a number of other objects; specifically, one should ask of what legitimacy. In the discussion, we have determined the military as the answer to the ‘what’. We could give meaning to the military in various ways but favor to regard it to be a social institution; hence, when we perceive legitimacy, it is from the point of view of the intricate notion of authority and a social institution. The military is indeed an institution since it has a clear-cut, formal, and consistent method of accomplishing something. It is an institutionalized procedure. Legitimacy or authority in the military is attained when this particular institution fulfills the expectations of proficiency and authority by its members. Ethics in the military is ultimately needed and manifested not in trainings but in the actual battlefield. Just like the difficulty of living an ethical life for ordinary citizen, the military as well has their own share of this ethical dilemma. References Brown, J. (1988). Defense Policy in the Reagan Years. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. Caplow, T. (1989). Peace Games. Middleton, Conn: Wesleyan University Press. Daft, R. (1988). Management. New York: Dryden Press. Galvin, J. (1989). The Minute Men. Washington, D.C.: PergamonBrassey. Kohn, S. (1986). Jailed for Peace. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Maloney, S. D. (1981, March-April). Ethics Theory for the Military Professional. Air University Review . Wyatt, T. C. (1990). Legitimacy and Commitment in the Military. New York: Greenwood Press. Read More