This symposium and its speakers and writers will be addressing an issue of very great relevance to all citizens of the modern world, not least among those the segments of our societies that bear arms in the defense of their countries. An axiom in most countries is that the military ‘society’ reflects the larger values of the greater culture of which it is a part. In other words, the military is not itself unique as to its moral perspective and actions but is rather a subset of a greater whole. At a more personal level, this is saying that the ethical principles of the military professional are of a kind with those that dominate in the greater society to which he or she belongs. Thus, consideration of a purely military ethic apart from its larger cultural context is difficult, maybe even impossible. So, in considering this topic, I suggest at the outset that any ethical system, military or otherwise, is best approached through a consideration of the larger society or cultural identity in which it is practiced.
Let us first distinguish between the foundational principles underlying a military ethic, to include the ways it is imprinted on a society, and the outworking of that ethic. The application of an ethical system, by which is meant the specific actions attributed to its operation, is the ‘business end’ of that ethic and is the proper focus of an ethics seminar. However, it is also instructive in considering the greater topic of ‘ethics’ to highlight the underlying source of an ethical system – the rationale behind it, the moral bedrock on which it is built. That is the theme of this paper. I will leave to other speakers and writers at this symposium the task of investigating ethics in practice – the exploration of issues related to practical application and service – and will instead attempt to focus our attention on the foundations of the ethical system that guides the behavior of our western democracies.
Cultural Context
As a starting point, let us address ourselves to the subject of cultural context and then consider three questions regarding ethical systems in general and that system most identified with Western democracies in particular. The three issues we will ultimately focus on are:
But first we must strive to understand the cultural context which underlies any ethical system. That will then provide the rationale for consideration of an ethic of military professionalism within the larger culture.
To permit us to most fruitfully discuss this topic, let us consider a definition: What exactly do we mean by ‘ethics’? A good working definition is that ethics is the conscious, philosophical reflection on moral beliefs and practices. Thus, any practical consideration of ethics deals with human conduct rather than beliefs themselves. In particular, professional ethics is the corporate set of rules, or standards, that governs that profession in its day to day operations based on the group's accepted belief system. At its root, then, an ethical system is a disciplinary structure deemed binding on the group by the group, and based on commonly held beliefs. But the beliefs or, more fully, the belief system comes first. Without a moral ‘foundation’, a comprehensive body of interrelated and consistent moral guidelines, no identifiable ethical system, or ‘ethic’, can survive. An ethic exists as a reflection of a moral system. And understanding that moral structure is where consideration of the ethic must begin.
I have belabored this entry point of our discussion on purpose: If we do not appreciate and work to thoroughly understand the source which provides the basis for our professional military ethic, all further discussion is futile. Without a fixed point of reference, the situation is akin to a sailor attempting to take a navigational fix on a cloud and a seagull. Surely the lines will cross on the chart – but to what purpose? He will neither know where he is nor know how to safely proceed. And, perhaps most importantly, he will not know where he is bound! A sorry navigator he would be, indeed. So let us look at our ethical compass now, and consider where we are.
Most of us involved in this ethics symposium are the products of a westernized culture. We are the heirs of a way of thinking that derives from a rich heritage. That heritage includes the philosophical works and artistic interpretations of a host of magnificent minds and talents. Over many years, generations, and centuries, these have combined to give focus to the dreams, intentions, and aspirations of their people. One consequence of this process in our western civilization is even the way we think. We are a rational, logic-driven people. We consider it a self-evident matter, for instance, that individuals exist for a purpose and ought to live ‘meaningful lives’. Otherwise what is the object of it all? Further, we extend the thought and belief that what holds for the individual should also hold true for the many, for the society at large – that it, too, must have a purpose or reason for its being. Now, some have held that this thought structure or philosophical framework is merely the product of ‘logic evolution’, a natural consequence of the progression of the race (on a par with, but certainly not superior to, other philosophical models – such as eastern mystical systems – which are considered to have similarly evolved). But the dominant view, in the west at least, has been that this logic-based framework is dominant because it is the most coherent, consistent, and verifiable thought system extant – because it leads to truth. Real truth is not subjective. It consists of a body of universally acknowledged observations that can’t be mistaken. The contention is not that western thought processes are themselves always true. Rather, it is that they provide the operational machinery which is the most adaptable analysis framework to get you there – to assess observations and truth claims objectively and coherently.
Enough philosophy. What, then, is the resultant unifying structure spelled out by the great thinkers, writers, and artists of our civilization that would claim to reflect truth? I contend that this identity is that framework for living and thinking outlined in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and that the faith represented there most fully reflects the defining moral consciousness of Western peoples. But, you might say, aren’t there other, competing philosophies and religions dearly held in the West? Don’t they have the right to make a claim to the allegiance of western societies as well? What about their claims on truth? How can it be said that such a narrow view is even tolerable, let alone sufficient to make the case?
Yes, there are certainly many and varied philosophies and faith options in the thought loyalties of western peoples. Yet the standard, the basis against which all are measured, is that system of thought and truth spelled out in the Bible of Judeo-Christianity. It has formed the basis of all western jurisprudence. It has spawned the most significant and prolific art. It has undergirded the most thoughtful and profound literature. It has, in a word, defined the culture of western peoples for most of the past two millennia. And even if counter claims are made – say, that Kant mounted a significant challenge to traditional Christian thought, or that modernism or post-modernism has rendered Christian faith dated and obsolete – still, it is against the measure or standard of Christianity that the charge is made. So that is what we mean when we say that the rational, God-centered, rules-based faith of the Christian is the cornerstone of our heritage and the defining basis of societal norms in the West. (In fact, it is with considerable justification that when “the West” is mentioned in any modern context, “the western democracies” are assumed. And the entire concept of governance by the people, the concept inherent in the word “democracy”, is rooted in belief in the incalculable worth and dignity of the individual, a conception that is a primary tenet of Scriptural teaching.) Please note that such an argument – that Judeo-Christianity has long been the accepted norm among western thinkers – in no way establishes its truth. It simply documents that it has been the guiding moral standard of record for a very long time, and so must be reckoned with. In this sense, it is the foundation of the cultural context in which its military arms exist and is, therefore, the key to understanding that culture and of any ethic that functions within it.
The Moral Framework: The Judeo-Christian Belief System
If the Judeo-Christian heritage and belief system is so key to our understanding of the ethic derived from and dependent on it, we would do well to pause a moment and consider just what it is that makes up this legacy. But we need to be careful here, for this is a daunting task. There have been libraries of volumes written, universities and seminaries founded, and countless careers and lives dedicated to interpreting just this issue. However, at least a brief review of the basics of the faith are in order so that we might more readily grasp its ethical implications.
So just what makes up this Judeo-Christian belief system? At its root, it is more than anything else a way of life based on a personal relationship. It is built on a truth claim of adherents that the force responsible for the existence of all that is, including the human race and each individual in it, is known and makes his desires known. This force, the divine essence called God (with a capital “G”, for that is his name), has not only established the created order but has communicated his expectations regarding how it is to be treated. Specifically, he has declared how he is to be treated and how mankind, collectively and individually, is to treat him and each other. It is rooted in the specifics of that set of relationships (man to God, and men to each other) and sets the guidelines for the interactions between and among them. Those actions, as reflected in our working definition of ethics, constitute the practical outworking of that “reflection on moral beliefs and practices” we noted earlier. It describes the way Jewish and Christian people and societies are to live.
This truth claim must be thoroughly understood if any of this is to make sense. Key to its understanding, briefly referred to in the paragraph above, is that this God has in fact communicated in space and time to make himself and his claims of authority (as creator and continuing governor of that creation) known. If there is a “God”, but if we are left to guess at who he is and what he expects, then we are hopelessly lost – unless we somehow “guess luckily” about the purpose of life and stumble unwittingly onto the truth. (And, even then, we must be capable and willing to live consistently with this truth – another issue entirely, to which we will address ourselves later.) However, if this God has declared these things, we are clearly obligated to make ourselves, as individuals and as a race, lifetime students of these decrees. The Jew or Christian holds that this communication is what has come down to us as Scripture, a collection of books by human authors acting as divinely appointed spokesmen who have proclaimed this God’s desires and expectations to humankind.
It is noteworthy at this point to reflect on one of the most important implications of this truth claim: That this God is not regional or confined to a specific race or ethnic group. Rather, the claim is that the Creator has spoken to all people in all his creation and that his pronouncements are true and binding on all. This assertion defies the claims of modernism, for instance, which contends that truth is relative and subject to individual interpretation. It also rejects post-modernism, which maintains that there can be no objective truth at all. The stark pronouncements of this faith are clear: God will be known on his terms, and on his terms only. Failure to grasp this all-encompassing fact, or understanding but failing to act obediently on it, entails the severest of consequences.
In condensing the whole of the Judeo-Christian belief system in so short a space, it is imperative to note one assertion among the many elements of God’s communication to mankind that stands far above all others in importance and grandeur. Notably, it is this belief that distinguishes Judaism from Christianity. And it is this doctrine that forms the dynamic of the relational claims of the faith that is Christianity. That claim is this: In space and time, God himself visited earth in human form and entered into relationships with men to carry the most important message of all to his charges. He had stated in earlier pronouncements, in what we know as the Old Testament books of the Bible, that the single greatest requirement he had laid upon mankind was the obligation to deal with him relationally – to “know” him – and, as a direct consequence, to treat others consistent with that knowledge. The condition for that relationship was the recognition of the need for redemption, or reconciliation with God, for offences committed against him. He had made very clear his rules and expectations for his creation. He had also communicated his disappointment, along with the certain consequences, of his creation’s failure to keep those rules and to meet the attendant expectations. The rules mandated obedience. The penalty stipulated death – eternal death, separation from the Creator God who made man, and everlasting punishment in the form of banishment from the divine presence and damnation to perpetual suffering. The new message, reflected for mankind in his New Testament books, was the good news, or “gospel”, that God himself had now made provision for reconciliation. And that reconciliation was through the life, teachings, and ultimately the substitutionary death and miraculous resurrection of God himself – become man in Jesus of Nazareth to make substitution for the very men he had created, and to pay the severe penalty for the disobedience practiced by them. It is a remarkable story, speaking of unfathomable love and mercy that is to be shared with all the world, for it is the source of hope for all mankind. Clearly, if this God is indeed the true creator of all men, and if he has made evident his requirements to those men, then they are accountable for meeting his terms. The story of Christianity is the narrative of how God himself met those requirements in the person of the God-man Jesus (or ‘Christ’, the ‘anointed’ or ‘sent one’), his son and emissary. And it tells of how, in the perfect love of the Creator, he has restored the power and harmony of the lost relationship. In summary, then, this is what is held as Christian orthodoxy (“right belief”):
This is the story of Christianity. It is a saga of orthodoxy, of right believing and right living. Although its history has not always been pure and virtuous – witness; the distorted faith reflected in the Crusades, in the Inquisition, or even in various national tragedies played out on contemporary news shows with Christian imagery (although, significantly, not Christian morality) the basic elements of what constitutes the faith system known as historic Christianity are not seriously disputed. And it is this system of moral principles that is at issue when we pick up the theme of a Christian ethic.
Human Dignity As A Basis for Ethical Behavior
How does a religious thought system translate into a pattern of actions that can be called a true ethic? Remember, we have framed the concept of an ethic in terms of human conduct. So we might rephrase our question as follows: How do the integrated principles of Christianity, as the defining moral system of a people, translate into national and individual actions – and, by extension, into the norms acted out by its military arms?
The answer is embedded in what we have said above regarding the very nature of Christianity itself. As a relational way of life, the central theme of the faith is that God has given each man and woman dignity and purpose in his act of creation; therefore, the currency or measure of the Christian is in the way he treats his fellow men. The dignity each living person holds is inherent in the very business of being human, in living in the image of the God who made him; therefore, men are obligated to treat one another as befits that high position. Jesus himself stated it this way: “All men will know you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:35). He loved men and that was the pattern he declared as normative for his followers. This guiding principle is also reflected in the famous Golden Rule: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31) and, further, in the Old Testament command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). So in these lofty sentiments we have the answer to our first question, What does an ethic mean to its culture, in this case a Christian ethic in a western democtractic culture? It means that people will interact with each other, personally and nationally, consistent with the moral guidance provided by the dominant belief system. And, from the preceding discussion, we can now understand the basic nature of a professional military ethic: A code of behavior translated into the military context as an interpretation of this Christian belief system, acted out in military-unique scenarios by citizen-soldiers. So how does the military professional do his sworn duty ‘lovingly’ - a duty (which may and frequently does involve the taking of human life)? If the currency of Christianity is love and respect for all who are made in God’s image, is this not the crux of the matter? This is a major issue, one that leads us to consideration of our second question: Why is this (the professional military ethic) significant?
Particularly in a Christian culture, the application of military force is a problematic thing. A strong tradition among some segments of the historic Christian faith have focused almost exclusively on the love claims of the faith and have interpreted the New Testament teachings about love, living in peace with one another, turning the other cheek, etc., quite literally. This view holds that there is virtually no scenario that can support violence by a true Christian against another human being. To them, the taking of the life of any image-bearer of God is fundamentally inconsistent with Scriptural teachings. Thus, to these groups, there is only limited use for a military arm, maybe none at all. Certainly, members of these religious orders would not take active part in the military and still be consistent with their beliefs. But the majority of Christian do place importance in a military arm of society, and even give it a place of prominence and stature in their culture. How is this reconciled with the teachings of Jesus?
The answer to this question is found in the structure of the Christian faith itself. If it can be said that the mortar of Christianity is love, then the stonework that makes up its walls is built upon the dignity of the individual. In Jesus’ own teachings the foundational principle, the basic underlying assumption, is that each man is worthy of protection from harm, of shelter, of provision of necessities – in other words, of being cared for. The majority of Jesus’ parables and teachings, as well as his actions and miracles, were targeted at meeting people’s needs and caring for them. His life’s work – and his mandate to his followers – was to put the Golden Rule into action through meeting needs. And a necessary presupposition of this principle is that there would be those who would deny some men those necessities and that care. Jesus was harsh and uncompromising in his assessment of those other peoples’ motives, actions, and ultimately their end. His was not a posture of endless deference and spineless timidity. Rather, he set a standard of courage in confronting injustice, meeting needs, and the pursuit of excellence that he held out as the model for all who would be his disciples.
During his ministry, Jesus interacted a number of times with military people or used military illustrations to highlight important spiritual principles. Never did he chastise military members for their calling, as he did some others, or suggest that their service was less than noble and necessary. By both his example and his teaching, he gave his followers to understand that service on behalf of others, in protection as in other areas of ministry, was an honorable and useful calling. That is significant. And the living out of true Christian principles within the context of the military lifestyle is an expectation of the man or woman of faith who would venture into a career there. Upholding the dignity of innocents, even at the cost of armed prosecution of those opposed to them, is supported by these principles. It is Christian to honor the civil authorities in their God-given responsibility to ensure justice (per Romans 13:1-7). And to the military professional, to honor means to obey obey so long as it is consistent with conscience and moral law
Implementing An Ethic: – Four Principles
Which leads us to our third question: Just how is a professional military ethic implemented in the culture? How does the military member “honor the king” (in the words of I Peter 2:17) in an open society? Specifically, addressing ourselves to the cultures of the western democracies – which we have identified as primarily Christian cultures – how is this ethic evidenced by those who would call themselves Christians? Jesus said very clearly that “you are my friends if you do what I command” (John 15:14). This, truly, is the heart of the matter and is where the practicing Christian who would honor his God will manifest his faith – or else fail as a witness – most surely. How are Christ’s teachings lived out in life? In the military context we can rephrase our question, How does the military member live Christianly? This is the business end of the professional military ethic in a Christian country: Showing fidelity to Christ’s commands in the profession of arms.
The exercise of ethical principles is, first and foremost, an individual matter. As the Christian individual puts into practice his belief system, as he or she makes decisions and models his actions, attitudes, and conversation around a personal guiding philosophy, the environment of which he or she is a part is affected. So, one decision at a time, one interaction at a time, one conversation at a time, that culture is being tempered and imprinted with the mark of the Christian. How is this done in the military environment? Here are four principles in the form of mandates that the diligent Christian military member must understand if he is to effectively promote his ethic in his chosen profession:
Again, it serves to reflect on the uniqueness of military life. In the close and often pressure-filled environment by which the military professional is surrounded – many times for streams of days and weeks on end – the times of peak tension and fatigue and the unexpected moments of urgent operational necessity are not the times to decide what constitutes ‘acceptable Christian behavior.’ These things must be thoroughly wrung out and mentally rehearsed well before instinct takes over. The Christian has the great confidence that he is a ‘new creature’ (II Corinthians 5:17) and that moral instincts can in fact be trained just as an athlete trains and refines his physical coordination skills. It is these spiritual skills which he must hone to ensure that he is prepared for the unwary moment. A morally out-of-shape Christian is as ill prepared for the contest as is the athlete who neglects regular exercise of his talents.
This business of honing attitudes and moral instincts must be approached in a disciplined and reverent way. It involves the personal study and thoughtful approach to every conceivable circumstance that could threaten his reputation in the working and living environment the Christian finds around him. The classic Westminster Catechism asks the ancient question, “What is the chief end of man?” (What is man’s purpose on the earth?) It then teaches, from Scripture, that it is “to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” The Christian wholeheartedly believes that and, so, knows his purpose in life and in his profession. But his meager effort to glorify his God must include as a base an educated and trained appreciation for what it is that does not glorify but instead disappoints. Every Christian, and especially those constantly subjected to the kinds of pressures common to the military life, must come to know where the line is. What line is that? It is the one that he knows in his heart makes him say to the world when challenged, “This far I go but no farther. This line I will not cross.” Without preaching, without reproach, without regret or apology, the Christian must know where the limits are. This is the very essence of the practice of ethics – to know the right thing to do, and to do it.
Finally, there is a fourth principle:
In Conclusion…
We can say, then, that the reasonable consequences of a military culture truly imprinted with these guiding principles will be right attitudes, right decisions, and right conduct evidenced throughout that culture. ‘Right’ will be understood to be the rules of the Christian faith, consistently applied by individuals and by whole units. Of course, right is right only when such judgments are based on truth. We have not attempted here to critically evaluate the truth claims of Scripture on which, as we have said, Christianity is based. That is a vitally important matter, to be sure, but is not what this discussion was intended to establish. Rather, it was assumed to be true so that we might move on and properly consider the ethic that flows from it.
The validity of Christianity is worthy of focused study by anyone who would put such an ethic as we have described into practice. In fact, it would be hypocritical for a military officer or enlisted member to presume to apply such an ethic in his professional life without understanding and accepting the basis for it. Mindless adherence to a culturally accepted pattern of behavior is not really ethics; it is closer to mimicry. And if there is a genuine ethic of military professionalism, as I have contended, then it has its basis in a foundation of Scriptural principles that are true. If he has reservations at this point, the careful professional will not fail to investigate and resolve this truth matter for himself.
So with this we close: We begin with a belief system, a set of consistent, tightly held standards. This accepted moral foundation – based on Christian principles, for our cultures – will find itself acted out in countless ways. Those myriad points of application of the guidelines of practical Christianity will occur in the daily life of the soldier, of the general, and of the army in events both routine and extraordinary. And that, as we said when we began our discussion, is what defines an ethic.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]