What is Ethics Ethics is the study of human actions in respect to their being right or wrong. Deep ethical reflection, whether we like it or not, cannot be carried out in isolation from theology. The concepts of right and wrong are deeply rooted in religion, and in a given society, what is considered as right or wrong conduct almost always derives from the teachings on good and evil embedded in the religion from which that society draws its basic values. What that society accepts as "final reality", in particular as it relates to human life, shapes the value system of that society.
Because all human conduct essentially takes place in relationship to other human beings, ethical standards generally reflect the value ascribed to human life by the prevailing religion.
Our western value system of right and wrong is based primarily on what Jesus taught, augmented by the Old Testament law givers and prophets, regarding the origin and value of human life. In the Judeo-Christian view, man was created by God in His image, with awareness, purpose, personality, and inherent worth. Every human life is endowed by God with equal rights, equal dignity and infinite value.
Although these teachings have been eroded, and in some cases prostituted radically, down through the centuries, they still strongly influence the attitudes of western people and form the core of our ethical concepts.
From this belief in the infinite value of human life has come the thesis that: "Whatever protects and enhances human life is good, and whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil".
Our whole concept of right or wrong conduct stems from this thesis. The great principles of justice, mercy, compassion, service, honor and freedom derive from this central distinction between good and evil.
In any nation, governmental systems, to include economic, health care, judicial, educational, and social welfare systems, are a direct reflection of the prevailing view of the value and dignity of human life. A high view of man produces systems which protect and enhance the life of the individual. A low or distorted view of man produces governmental systems which degrade life and exploit the individual for the benefit of the ruling elite.
The American governmental system, as conceived by our founding fathers in the mid 18th century, reflects the Judeo-Christian view of man: Interestingly, all of our founding fathers had a European heritage and were deeply influenced by European values of justice, equality and freedom.
Our Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men..."
The preamble to our Constitution states:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of peace to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of
America."
Western nations hold that every human life is precious and that each human life is worth protecting and enhancing. The laws of our nations reflect this cultural conviction, which is derived from our religious heritage. Behavior which is consistent with this view of life is considered ethical. The high value of human life is what has moved people down through the ages to establish hospitals, educational institutions, orphanages, social welfare systems, and famine and disaster relief organizations. The high value of human life is reflected in our civil laws regarding murder, assault, rape, industrial safety, equal opportunity, and the protection of the innocent in a wide variety of situations.
The high view of human life has motivated thinking people to oppose such social evils as slavery, child labor, slums, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse, abortion and euthanasia, and the exploitation of the weak and helpless by the rich and powerful.
The high view of human life is what motivated the NATO forces, for 40 long years, to face down the Soviet Union until that empire crumbled under the weight of its own callous disdain and disregard for the human condition within its own borders.
The Military Profession
Before addressing ethics within our profession, I want to deal briefly with the ethical basis for our profession, and the nature of our profession.
In order to be consistent, the legitimacy of the military
profession and the conduct of individual members of that
profession must be evaluated within the context of the thesis:
"Whatever protects and enhances human life is good, and
whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil".
Military power, in and of itself, is neither ethical or unethical. It is the purpose for which it is used which gives it ethical content.
Fundamentally, military power is used to coerce, either by action or threat of action. It is the final arbiter when other means of persuasion have failed.
Military force implies the organized application of physical force by one nation against another as contrasted to police action, which implies physical force applied internally.
The legitimate purpose of the military forces of a nation is to provide for the common defense, that is, to insure the survival of the nation's people and their way of life.
In its purest and most fundamental essence, the purpose of military force is to protect life, not to destroy life - to protect the lives of the citizens of the nation from external aggression so that they may live in peace and security.
Every nation has domestic police forces to protect its citizens from the internal threat of crime and lawlessness. So also every nation has a military force to protect its citizens from the external threat of aggressor nations who would rob the people of their freedom and destroy their lives.
The ultimate and legitimate purpose of the military profession is to protect the lives of the citizens of the nation from aggression.
This purpose is entirely consistent with, and actually flows from, the highest Judeo-Christian ethic - "That which protects and enhances life is good. That which destroys and degrades life is evil."
Can the legitimate purpose of military force be prostituted? Can military force be used un-ethically? Of course it can, and it often is, especially when military force is under the control of un-ethical leaders. But the fact that military force is often used un-ethically does not negate the fact that there is a legitimate and honorable purpose for military force - to protect the lives of the citizens of the nation from outside aggression.
Now turning to the nature of our profession:
First, we are a service profession. Thus we are called
"service" men and women. We provide a service to the
citizens of our nations. We provide for their common defense
against outside aggression. We are paid by the citizens of our
nations to provide that service, and we are ultimately
accountable to them for the quality of our performance.
Second, due to the requirements imposed on us by the mission of common defense, we are an hierarchical and authoritative profession. We are subject to orders. We must be responsive, quick, and efficient from top to bottom, from front to rear, from general to private. We must maintain discipline in order to achieve the high standards of effectiveness required by the inherent nature of our legitimate tasks.
And third, we are under civilian authority. Because we control power sufficient to enslave our own citizens and usurp the constitutional process, we are sworn to submit to the authority of our civilian elected officials and their duly appointed civilian surrogates. In democratic societies, power does not "flow out of the barrel of a gun", as once stated by Chairman Mao Tse Tung of the Peoples Republic of China, but rather out of tens of thousands of ballot boxes scattered throughout the land on election day.
And so we are an honorable profession with an ethical purpose, a purpose consistent with our fundamental value system. We are a service profession accountable to the citizens of our nations. We are an authoritative profession subject to orders. And we are under civilian control, reflecting the fundamental source of political power in our society.
Professional Military Ethics
Now let us look at ethics as applied to our profession. First, what do we mean by the term "professional ethics"? In essence, professional ethics is that body of written or unwritten standards of conduct by which a profession disciplines itself. One writer has said, "Professional ethics are designed to assure high standards of competence in a given field." In general terms, that conduct which contributes to the attainment of the purpose of that profession is right. That conduct which detracts from the attainment of the purpose of that profession is wrong.
Various professions have adopted either written or unwritten codes. Doctors, nurses, engineers, news media persons, lawyers, businessmen - all have established standards of right and wrong conduct for their professions by which they discipline themselves and insure high standards of competence.
Applied to the military profession, and as a general statement, whatever actions enhance the defense of the nation, and thus the protection of the lives of its citizens, may be considered "right", and whatever actions degrade the defense of the nation may be considered "wrong".
However, this must statement be modified by the more fundamental ethic, "Whatever protects and enhances life is good, and whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil".
The foundation of military ethics is the conviction that whatever conduct contributes to the accomplishment of the purpose of the military profession is "right" - provided that it is consistent with the value and dignity of human life. Whatever conduct detracts from that purpose, or violates the value and dignity of human life, is "wrong".
In the context of military ethics, professional competence is an ethical imperative. We cannot effectively contribute to the accomplishment of our purpose unless we are professionally competent.
So can we establish a general rule that captures the essence of military ethics? I think that we can.
What is right - that is, what is "ethical" - is that which enhances the accomplishment of our basic purpose, the defense of the nation, provided that it is consistent with our fundamental view of the value and dignity of all human life.
As a criteria, ask this question: "Does the policy we are about to approve, or the action we are about to take, contribute to the national defense, and is it consistent with the value and dignity of human life?" If we can answer "YES" to this question, then we are on solid ethical ground.
The Ethical Use of Military Force In the western world, there is a general agreement that the use of military force for national defense in justified. We interpret "national defense" to mean the protection of out national geographical boundaries and the citizens who live within those boundaries. We also agree that military force is justified in support of our legitimate national interests, which we broadly define as including not only national defense but also our way of life and our standard of living.
Our way of life is the way of freedom with responsibility. Our way of life is defined by our great social institutions - the political, judicial, economic, military, religious, educational, health care, and human welfare institutions which are the fabric western society.
Our standard of living is related not only to the quality of our social institutions but also is dependent on unrestricted access to world markets, which throws the national interest squarely into the international marketplace. In todays world, the national interest of every nation involves considerations far removed from their geographical boundaries.
The Object of War
An American military philosopher has stated that, "The object of war is a better state of peace".
This implies that there is a "wrong" somewhere that needs to be "righted", and that other means having been exhausted, military force is required to right that wrong. Once the wrong has been righted, the use of military force should be terminated, the "better state" having been achieved.
Here again, ethics is involved because describing a situation as "right" or "wrong" requires the exercise of moral judgment.
A fundamental dilemma emerges in that among nations whose ethical value systems differ markedly, there can never be full agreement regarding what is right and wrong.
The internal laws of democratic nations reflect, in general, the majority opinion of the nations citizens. These laws can be enforced, with the consent of the people, using physical force, ie, the internal police.
However, this is not true in the international arena. What one nation considers to be wrong may be viewed by an adversary nation to be right. It is only when there is general global agreement regarding right and wrong in some particular situation that international law has evolved. And even then, enforcement has been difficult, slow, and inconsistent.
The dilemma of government is whether or not to use military force to create or sustain an order which is broader than the scope of its own national authority. This was the issue faced by each NATO nation involved in the situation in Kosovo.
The the primary issue faced today by the United States, as the one remaining super power in this post cold-war era, is whether or not to assume the role of policeman of the world. We recall from history the days of "Pax Romana" and later of "Pax Britannica". Should we now seek to establish a worldwide "Pax Americana"?
Obviously, there are many wrongs in the world which need to be righted. But under what circumstances should the United States, or any nation, or group of nations, attempt to right those wrongs? What are the ethical criteria for the use of military force to right the wrongs which exist? And who is to determine what is truly a wrong, and then who is to decide which wrongs should - or even can - be righted? This is the overriding ethical issue of our time.
The Morality of the Consequences
Although the consequences of a military action can never be fully anticipated, the effort to anticipate these consequences must always be made. Here an appreciation of history is essential. Decision makers must always recognize that the application of military force is like opening a "Pandora's box". War unleashes passions which are unpredictable and which, once unleashed, may not be able to be controlled. Those who advocate the use of military force for any reason have a moral responsibility to think through all of the possible consequences.
On the other hand, the consequences of the failure to use military force must also be assessed. What would be the "state of peace" in Western Europe today had not NATO faced down the Soviet Empire and its allies along the Iron Curtain for forty years? Is there not now a "better state of peace" in Western Europe because of this collective effort?
And consider the Balkans. What have been the consequences of the use of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo? Is there now a "better state of peace" in the region as a result of the use of military force? And what might have been the consequences of the failure to use military force in the Balkans? I leave that to your judgment.
Tucked back in the Old Testament book of I Chronicles, chapter 12, there is an account of King David assembling his armies. From among the multiple thousands who came from the 12 tribes of Israel, there was a small group of "200 leaders" from the tribe of Issachar, who, it is recorded, "understood the times and knew what Israel should do". Would that the western world, at this crucial time in history, could raise up 200 leaders who understand the times and know what the civilized, law abiding, democratic, freedom loving nations of the world should do. Will you be one of those 200?
I think that there is no higher calling for military leaders of the democratic nations of the world, at this time in history, than to truly "understand the times" and to formulate foundational criteria for the ethical use of military force.
The Role of Senior Military Officers in the Formulation of National Policy
And now, one final consideration. To what extent should senior military officers seek to influence national level policy decisions which may lead to the use of military force?
In the western democracies, it is ingrained in the whole concept of military service that the soldier is subject to civilian authority. In the final analysis, once the civilian authority has spoken, the soldiers role is "do or die".
Civilian leaders who are involved in formulating national policy do so with the assumption that military force will be available to implement that policy if other means of persuasion fail. Military leaders have traditionally been isolated from participation in these national policy considerations .
However, in the aftermath of World War II, a new awareness has emerged. The Nurnburg trials of Nazi leaders established that military leaders as well as civilian leaders can be held responsible for national policy decisions involving the use of military force. While generals who were loyal to Hitler were tried and convicted, those who resisted him were hailed as heroes.
Also, consider the more recent example of Serb military leaders who are carrying out the policies of their civilian president and yet are widely believed to be just as culpable of war crimes as their civilian leader.
Certainly, if military leaders are to be held accountable for the policies of their governments, it follows that military leaders ought to have a role in the formulation of those policies.
However, on what occasions and to what extent military leaders ought to insert themselves, even as unwelcome participants, into the decision making process, is a matter for serious debate. As a minimum, when issues of military ethics are being ignored by the civilian authorities, the military leaders have a fundamental responsibility to become involved.
Conclusion
I will conclude with one more thought, and then stand for questions. There are some senior military leaders who seem to have a internal "compass" and can accurately sense the direction to take in the ethical morass which characterizes high level decision making. These leaders were not born with this sense of ethical understanding. They have developed it over the years by immersing themselves in the study of ethics - right and wrong conduct - as it applies to their profession. And they have fully understood and subscribed to the fact that there are immutable and absolute laws of right and wrong human conduct just as there are immutable and absolute laws which govern the physical universe.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]