Allow me to begin the discussion with the definitions of some
terms I will be using.
Values: Moral beliefs that shape a person’s
behavior.
Moral: How well you adhere to an accepted set of
values.
Ethics: Principles or standards developed from
values that guide professionals to do the moral or right thing
– what ought to be done.
Ethical Problem: When two or more deeply held
values collide.
Character: Character describes a person’s
inner strength. Your character helps you know what is right. More
than that, character links that moral knowledge to action.
Character gives you the courage to do what is right regardless of
the circumstances or the consequences.
Spiritual Fitness: Those personal qualities
needed to sustain a person in times of stress, hardship, and
tragedy. These qualities are usually developed from beyond human
reason and experience.
To assist me in illustrating and explaining several points of
this paper, I want to use the following scenario:
Scenario: A supervisory soldier, who has responsibility
for a number of other soldiers, has a soldier with a pay problem.
He knows that if he gets directly involved with the problem he
could probably solve it. He would at least show his young soldier
that he truly cares for his welfare. Getting involved, however,
would cause him a great deal of extra work. It may even cause
difficulties with his superiors for revealing problems with the
pay system. This supervisory soldier feels both tremendous
personal pressure and pressures from above to just explain to the
young soldier exactly what he, the young soldier, needs to do and
then let him solve his own problem.
All Armed Forces want and need soldiers, officer and enlisted, who know the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong. The military needs its members to have the ability to make right decisions. This is especially important when the guidance, policies, regulations, and law that would specify a "right" course of action are absent or unclear. But knowing the right decision or course of action is not enough. After arriving at the right decision or course of action, these soldiers must have the necessary moral strength of character to now do the right thing.
There are at least two major questions that underlie this process. How are right and wrong ultimately decided? and What motivates a person to do the tough right, especially when no one is looking or would even find out? How these questions are answered will determine the moral character of an Armed Force.
Question #1: "How are right and wrong ultimately decided?" In the scenario, the supervisory soldier could argue he did the right thing by very carefully explaining to his soldier exactly what he needed to do to try and resolve his own pay problem. Who can say the supervisory soldier didn’t do the right thing? What would be the basis of that determination? Then, who decides whether the decision was right or wrong? Do we just rely on whatever the most senior ranking soldier decides? If you’ve ever experienced that way of deciding ultimately what’s right and wrong (and I suspect most soldiers have) you quickly realize you have a shifting standard of right and wrong, which is easily open to abuse.
I believe that if any military desires a consistent way of deciding what is ultimately right in any given situation, it must be by a set of values. These values will, of course, be strongly influenced by human experience and reason. What else do we have to decide right and wrong in any given ethical problem? There is one other source, but let’s look at reason and experience first.
The case for reason and experience: Is it not simple common sense that when we are faced with an ethical problem, like in the scenario, we should bring our best reason and experience to bear on the problem, coming up with a course of action, and then do it? Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But it is not! Human nature being what it is many times causes us to fail with reason and experience alone. Reason can quickly turn into rationalization for anything we desire or prefer. Experience can easily justify any course of action depending on what experiences we choose to emphasize. Followed to its logical conclusion, any system of right and wrong based on reason and experience alone will quickly turn into everyone doing what was right in their own "eyes"
But you may say "The group will shape and conform the individual". Yes, I know the philosophical and sociological arguments that say an individual’s beliefs of right and wrong would be tempered and "corrected" by the group, like the military. An individual’s belief in right and wrong would go through a group process of consensus building based on reason and experience. This would continue all the way up to the national level. This national consensus would consist of what a majority of that nation’s people agree on as to what’s right and wrong. These areas of consensus usually become our laws and decrees. Sounds very logical and reasonable. But serious problems exist if the group consensus approach is taken to its logical conclusion. Let me give an experiential illustration of the problems. In my country, the USA, there has been and is today a portion of the people who have relied solely on reason and experience alone as their ultimate source of deciding right and wrong. They have influenced national law and beliefs along these lines, causing my country to grow morally and ethically weaker. You would find very few people in the US today who would argue we are morally stronger now than we were 30 to 40 years ago. And we, the US military, inherit many of these people in the military as officers and enlisted. Recognizing this cultural shift, the US military has, in the recent years, turned to the belief that we must now teach/develop character in both the officers and enlisted that enter our armed forces. We can no longer assume that they come into the military with the strength of character needed to accomplish our missions. I don’t think the US military is alone in this problem.
Given the limitations of reason and experience, what is the alternative? What is there besides human reason and experience that can assist us in deciding what is ultimately right and wrong? I submit that religion, (in the US military we call it spiritual fitness), is the critical missing element. Again, let me turn to an experiential argument. Historically, in the US before the 1960’s the way a national ethical problem was addressed was that the best reason and experience were brought to bear on the problem. The process did not end there, however. The result was scrutinized. If the result violated a religious principle (usually a Christian principle) then that right was considered wrong or inadequate and was rejected. The nation went back through its political processes again. The problem was argued until a better right was arrived at that agreed with a majority of the people’s reason and experience AND did not violate religious principle. Reason and experience were utilized to the fullest but religious principle was used as the SOURCE of ultimate truth. To reiterate, if a majority of our nation came up with what they believed to be right yet found that that right violated religious principle – the right was considered wrong and more debate followed.
Beginning in the 1960’s, our Supreme Court struck down many of the ways we instilled religious principles in the populace. We grew into a country that pursued right and wrong based on reason and experience alone. We reaped and are continuing to reap moral and ethical weakness and its logical result, character weakness. The resulting negative impact on our nation is evident. The quality of our military is lessened as we incorporate officers and enlisted personnel without the strength of character we need. That is why the military has turned away from a values system based on reason and experience alone. We are instead pursuing a values system that’s ultimate source of right and wrong is defined by religious, primarily Christian, principles. This method enables our military to have moral absolutes. A religion based values system allows us to have the best of both systems. Consider the definitions of the seven values of the US Army – Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. You will see definitions with strong reason and experience behind them yet they also do not violate religious principles. It makes a big difference. A religion based values system gives us the ability to decide what’s ultimately right and wrong.
This is why the US military is committed to instilling the knowledge, understanding, and conviction that the application of its values in any decision is what will enable a soldier to know or derive the right course of action. It will also enable the soldier and the military to decide what courses of action are wrong. Therefore, a supervisory soldier, although under tremendous personal pressure and pressure from superiors will know that just explaining to his soldier what he must do is ultimately morally and ethical wrong. It would be a sign of weak character. Wait, you may ask. What does this have to do with religious principle? Could not this supervisory soldier come to this conclusion based on human reason and experience alone and still say he adhered to military values? Yes, theoretically, he could arrive at that decision. But that does not usually occur. Once, again, let me turn to an experiential argument. It has been my experience that when soldiers are faced with an ethical problem, the resultant behavior falls into three categories:
This brings me to the second question I discussed at the very beginning of the paper. What motivates a person to do the tough right, especially when no one is looking or would even find out? Once the soldier arrives at the right course of action based on instilled military values, what would motivate him to do that right, especially when no one is looking or would find out if he did otherwise? I submit that spiritual fitness would. Quoting from the Christian Bible,
Proverbs 3:5-6, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; [6] in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." [NIV translation]
I Corinthians 15:58, "Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."[NIV translation]
Simply put, a soldier whose ultimate goal in life is to please, honor, and obey his God in all he says and does will prove to have the strongest character. It is the strongest source of motivation to do the toughest right in the face of any and all obstacles. His strength of character will allow him to complete right acts that reason and experience would have called "foolhardy" and "not personally worth it". There may be other motivations to do the tough right, but none as all encompassing or all empowering. It is spiritual fitness that leads to moral toughness and the strongest character.
One final thought based on my experience in character development. The US Army decided five years ago to review and rewrite its doctrine on ethics and character development. I was part of the process that rewrote our Army Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership. Very early in the process it became apparent that two very distinct camps of belief were going to fight for control over how we would define our values, ethics, and how we would develop character. There were those who were adamant that a philosophy based on reason and experience alone was more than adequate for the Army. They argued, "We live in a very diverse religious society and using any religious principles would only confuse or leave someone out". The other side was just as adamant that reason and experience informed and controlled by religious principle would offer the best philosophy for defining our values, ethics, and how we would develop character. The battle was tremendously hard fought. Who won out? Reason and experience informed and controlled by religious principle. What convinced military leaders of the necessity of a values system based on reason and experience informed and controlled by religious principle? The leaders of the US Army came to realize the inherent weaknesses of reason and experience alone in two areas. First, reason and experience alone were inadequate for defining consistent, ultimate truth. Reason and experience alone were too easily influenced by self-oriented motivations, resulting in "every man does what is right in his own eyes". Reason and experience informed and controlled by religious principle, however, provided an external check on the darker side of man’s humanness. Secondly, reason and experience alone lacked the ability to motivate soldiers to choose the tougher right. Reason and experience alone could guide thinking and inflame passions but they would consistently fail at motivating follow through not automatically translate into right actions. Strength of character and moral courage are required for action. Spiritual fitness, acquired from beyond human reason and experience, acts as a guard for reason and experience and is able to call, impel, motivate, and empower right actions.
Returning to our initial question, "What is the best way to teach/develop character in an Armed Forces?" My firm belief is that values based character development is the best method to form strong character among any Armed Forces. A thorough understanding, acceptance, and use of a set of values, not based solely on human reason and experience, but instead based on religious values will enable a soldier to make the best moral and ethical decisions, resulting in an Armed Force of strong character.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]