The offer does not only refer to visible goods but also to the invisible factors that determine our attitudes and the many decisions that we make in our everyday life. The individual grows up with a certain background that consists of cultural, religious, financial and other aspects. This process is affected by the increasing complexity of the environment. Growing up with a certain background is resulting in a system of values and norms that we have in mind. We have a construct of ethics and moral standards that tells us what is "good" or "bad". What are the authorities that are responsible for the transfer of moral values? The traditional places to learn values are, in particular, the family, school and the church; i.e. places of social interaction. We can see that these insitutions have growing problems in fulfilling this task. More and more families are breaking up, in school aspects of career are of greater importance than community interests and the church is getting less popular, too. There is an immense offer of competing values, and the most attractive wins. There are many publications that describe this phenomenon in detail (Inglehart, Lindsay, Klages).
We see that reduction is necessary wherever there is complexity. My thesis is that there are two different ways how complexity can be reduced in order to produce cognitive orientation for the individual. On the one hand it can be done by judification, i.e. the alternatives of action are restricted by a catalogue of laws or rules. On the other hand cognitive orientation can be given by moral standards. This principle can also be seen in the military context. In the military system there are two ways of obtaining cognitive orientation. We can make a distinction between a system of regulations and a system of values that everybody, including servicemen, can refer to. Both can serve as a tool to solve conflict situations.
As the military has a strong connection to a multidimensional system of values, it is directly affected by the change of values going on within society. Military behavior itself promotes traditional values like discipline, obedience, loyalty, hierarchy and solidarity. The importance of these values is diminishing in the civilian society. (Neil Postman shows in his latest work that education has come to its end because of the loss of traditional values.) This means that the military is forced to examine its understanding of values in a steady process. Military personnel, as well as civilians, are confronted with the rapidly increasing complexity of the offers mentioned. What does this mean for the image servicemen have of themselves; what effects does this have on their understanding of their role as military personnel? Do "good" and "bad" mean the same to a civilian as to a member of the Forces? Who sets the standards?
These standards are not the same in different societies. In China, for example, there is a system of values that differs from the one known in societies in the west. A principle that is accepted globally - without regard to almost any culture and religion - is the "golden rule". What does the existence of differing systems of values mean to the military? The military is a political instrument; what are the values that politics wants the military to internalize? In this context it is interesting to take a look at the long history of international law that aims to protect the sick, the wounded, prisoners of war, civilians, etc. (Geneva Conventions I - IV). These international agreements have their roots in a general system of values. It is important that the military, especially the military leaders, accepts these values, because the acceptance of these values determines the behavior of the serviceman in a conflict situation. A military conflict will always be a conflict of values, too. If a soldier has a solid foundation of values and convictions, he is not as prone to do "wrong". In history there are many examples of servicemen committing cruelties beyond imagination because they had no solid values. My Lai may serve as an example. Such crimes are committed in all wars. Ethical education of servicemen must be aimed at developing sincere character, promoting social behavior but also preventing war crimes. An inherent risk is (and a look at German history proves this) that war crimes can also be committed with a good conscience, simply because the wrong ethical values have been taught.
Of special importance is the ethical education of officers, the military leaders. They influence their subordinates. Examinations show that especially in an unclear situation servicemen follow their leaders. The leader`s behavior is often the only guidance they have and accept. So the military leader`s role is that of a multiplicator.
How do increasing complexity and the change of values affect the ethical education of military leaders? It would be interesting to find out how this education is carried out in the armed forces of different nations with regard to their cultural, religious and geographical backgrounds. What are the respective values that are considered to be important? How intensive is the training? Which means and methods are used? Can the classics be helpful? What results does this kind of education produce? Is there an evaluation? Has the present change of values already influenced the curricula of several institutions? It is the duty of social science to ask and explain these questions. As a result it might be foreseen which specific social problems the military will have to face in the near future. This might allow for the designing of strategies for dealing with these problems before they become urgent.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]