The United States Air Force is comprised of 313,722 personnel. These personnel all have varying backgrounds and both positive and negative values and motivations for being in the world's greatest Air Force. With such diversity, there will be situations that challenge the first Air Force Core Value, "Integrity First." All Airmen will either find themselves in or be pressured into a situation that will challenge their ethics. Knowing how to decipher your way out of any ethical traps is the crux of Dr. James Toner's six tests and is the concept I value most from module 6. Being able to navigate ethical dilemmas is an important facet of a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). Without this skill NCOs risks being taken advantage of and failing to
3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division must face reality. “The kill company” scandal has seriously damaged the image of the US Army, which in turn has challenged the trust the Nation places in its armed forces. More concretely, these events highlighted the need for strengthening the Rakkasans’ ethics standards. Soldiers are not warriors; they are ethical warriors, whose identity relies on two inseparable pillars: ethics principles and operational efficiency. The Army core values reflect this ethical identity and the duties that come with it. Understanding that warriors need solid ethical references, the Brigade will demonstrate commitment to the Army values, invest in ethics education, and engage leadership.
Ethics Theory for the Military Professional by Chaplin (COL) Samuel D. Maloney illustrates the complex ethical decision making process. Army Leaders are responsible for professionally, and ethically develop subordinates. Developing unethical subordinates in a zero defect Army is a leadership challenge. Goal-Oriented Aspirations, Rule-Oriented Obligations, and Situation-Oriented Decisions provide leaders an understanding of the ethical decision making process. The first step to Professionally developing subordinates is identifying, and providing input on all subordinate goals. Leaders are obligated to enforce rules and regulations. Understanding subordinate character provides leaders with the information to evaluate a soldier’s integrity. However,
The essay identifies an ethical dilemma in the United States Army Aviation Branch. It seeks to identify the root cause of the problem using the ethical lenses of rules, outcomes, and virtue provide by the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic. Modern Army Leaders face an ethical dilemma, specifically in low-density Military Occupational Specialties, of completing the mission and enforcing the standards of Army Regulation 600-9. Units deploying or conducting critical training need Soldiers or pilots holding crucial skills. These Soldiers must comply with the body composition standards outlined in the regulation. There are no exceptions. Concrete experience obtained through interviews provided examples of the dilemma. The concrete experiences also provided the leaders action when encountering an ethical dilemma. The root problem produced two courses of action. The courses of action entered the ethical lenses. The impact on the force and recommendation to correct the root cause were given. Leaders must build, implement, and enforce a rigourous Physical Readiness Training program. They must also monitor and participate in the program.
Often throughout life you are approached with situations that may make you question your ethics. This could very well happen in any profession, on any day. Being a part of the military is one of those professions that could put individuals in many moral/ethical dilemmas. “An ethical or moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is required by their ethical code to take at least two actions and, while able to take either, is not able to take both. In other words, they face an ethical failure no matter how they choose to act” (“What is an ethical dilemma?”, 2007). The popular movie film Lone Survivor has a few points where ethical dilemma stands out.
The ethical wilderness introduces the rules of engagement in many respects. Nobody wants to die in combat, especially when loss of life can be prevented. To Americans, it is nearly impossible to differentiate between Vietcong soldiers and civilians. In many instances, the two are interchangeable. A natural response is to engage anyone who is not an American or not where movement is expected. However, rules of engagement are created to prevent the slaying of noncombatants to include civilians and medical personnel in the like. These rules are not concrete, but in fact, they are very fluid so as to prevent ambiguity in changing circumstances. Marines with nervous trigger fingers make following such rules very difficult.
Ethics matter in any kind of business or organization, but they are especially significant when it comes to the US Army (Blackburn, 2001). The reason behind this involves the chain of command and the risk to life and limb that are such large parts of military life. When a soldier in the Army has no ethics, he or she can cause trust and respect problems with other members of his or her unit. The US military is a stressful organization for most people involved with it, and people's lives are on the line frequently. Issues like PTSD and other medical problems are commonplace for those who leave the military and must adjust to civilian life, so it is very important that those who are in the Army work with their colleagues and higher-ups to get the help and support they need during and after their service. There is more to ethics in the Army than the problems that military individuals can face, though.
While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.
The following are the key ethical decision points shown in Platoon. In each of them soldiers make decisions with large ethical ramifications. For each example, where the
In 2003, I was witness to this ethical dilemma first hand. I, like so many of my peers, was preparing for an upcoming deployment. There were unfilled positions within the battalion to be sure. Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) struggled with plans to ensure a successful rotation despite this. However, at no time did a single NCO ever consider just simply stopping a pending chapter to fill a position. Nevertheless, this was our guidance for every case that concerned an overweight Soldier. That one broad ranging directive from the brigade immediately placed every NCO into an ethical dilemma. The brigade expected us to ignore the Army standards so that we could implement a quick fix solution to our problems.
At the outbreak of war I looked upon taking life as a horrible and wicked thing - something I, with my religious training, could never do, and had genuine conscientious objections to becoming a soldier for that reason, but as the weeks went by and instance after instance of Hun brutality - the fruits of militarism - became common knowledge I had often to take myself to task. Before Xmas, 1914, the truth dawned on me - I had been selfish - ignoring the fact that thousands of fine, brave fellows had already given their lives - good Christian men most of them - and presumed to put my conscientious objections before my country’s need and the cause of God. The Germans have relinquished all claim to humanity and have gravitated to the level of vermin - even conscientious objectors must grant this. Would they permit any other kind of vermin to do the same amount of evil and create as much misery without attempting to exterminate it? A few months of active service teaches one a great deal, things that once counted diminish to details of no importance; a man’s reasoning power is broadened, he is more balanced when coming to conclusions, and he becomes more reliable if more silent. In warfare, particularly at that stage when a man meets a man, killing is merely a matter of self preservation - your opponent - the aggressor - is determined to rob you of your life - the only effective way to prevent this is to take his - if you do not attempt to do so then you are guilty of self murder. When on lookout duty in a first line trench a soldier quickly takes aim and deliberately shoots the enemy through the head (the only visible part). Should he not do so, or should
Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.
Military personnel operating in combat missions must maintain mental and situational awareness of their area of operations. This includes a complete understanding of their physical and doctrinal training. Besides accomplishing their mission, soldiers must also consider the rules of engagement and the personal and professional ethics, values and morals that factor into their decisions in high stress environments (Allen, 2013). Well planned missions will never be executed perfectly. Due to human nature, soldiers may be faced with an ethical dilemma.
There are unwritten rules of war, and the United States may have broken one by attacking innocent civilians, but they were protecting their own. The United States has always been pro-active when it comes to the safety of its citizens and this was just
Service members in the military are faced with tough decisions on a daily basis. Despite the difficult situations, the majority of service members will opt to the right thing. However; there are several service members who will elect the easy path and end up choosing the wrong decision, even though they know the right thing to do. I agree with General. H. Norman Schwarzkopf that people know the right thing to do and that it is difficult to execute because of a person’s belief, risky behavior, and integrity.