Ethical Dilemma Of The United States Army Aviation Branch

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

No matter if you stay in for one enlistment or two, the depth of the Marine Corps is unknown so knowledge will continuously flow and it is endless. All Marines get taught the basics of being a leader in entry level training, but only a few can react to help form their trait into an elite skill only for them. In order to become the elite you have to build a "Foundation of Values" (pg.31) so that respect in all aspects will become evident between the followers and their leader(s). While setting the example it does not matter what rank you are, you still show that the standards that you hold will reflect on who you are as a person and a Marine. Each Marine chooses how their standards and ways will become beneficial not only to the Marine Corps, but to themselves also. Why do ethics make conducting a moment of decision making so hard? At some point and time every Marine will come to a point in their career or life where the grey area will be the path they choose, but will not think that it is the right way. Moral and ethic dilemmas are common more and more each day. Every Marine is taught to be the toughest both physically, and mentally.

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,

Stewardship of the Army Profession is the last of the Five Essential Characteristics of the Army Profession, but in terms of importance, it is just as, if not more important than the other four. The United States Army’s ADRP-1, or Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 1, even defines stewardship as “the responsibility of Army professionals to ensure the profession maintains its five essential characteristics now and into the future”. Such importance is placed on this characteristic because Stewardship of the Army Profession is the one that ensures the other four are maintained. I sought out the definition of stewardship because despite having spent almost three and a half years and West Point, I was not entirely sure what the doctrine behind Stewardship was. In doing this, I felt like I was better prepared for both this paper and ensuring that the corrections I made were stewarding the profession. With this newly acquired knowledge, I set out to make my corrections.

Throughout military history, there have been many leaders that can be considered either visionary or ethical. This paper will discuss how BG Robin Olds was a visionary leader, but not a very ethical leader. From the beginning of his career, he was a visionary in aerial combat tactics and a true believer of leading from the front. His vision of aerial combat was beyond his years, but often fell upon deaf ears due to his flamboyant nature. He never hesitated to say exactly what was on his mind, which is why his actions could be considered unethical. But, his men loved him, and would follow him to hell and back. First, this paper will discuss BG Olds’ visionary leadership abilities he displayed the Viet Nam

Charged with sex-related crimes involving 10 female Airmen, 4 counts of adultery, and several other charges such as indecent conduct, misuse of position, and maltreatment of enlisted Airmen, former Command Chief of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) CMSgt William Gurney failed to ethically lead his Airmen. By his own admission, he was “caught in a cycle of sin and failed as an Airman and a husband.” 1 In this essay, I will discuss the Chief’s specialty and some of the positions he held as a Printer Systems Operator, I will then highlight the unethical events that took place from a few different viewpoints to include the accused and his alleged victims. Finally, I will give you my opinion on how I would have acted if put in the same

Although many things about engineering are positive there is a dark side. We depend on them and while engineers are making innovations for us, and maintaining life as the way we know it they also struggle with ethical issues such as plagiarism, confidentiality, and whistleblowing. Just like the list of golden rules we learned as young children, engineers uphold a list of ethical rules to guide them to make the ethically correct decision when one of these situations arise. Bribery the act of receiving or giving a gift with something required in return is another example of an ethical issue that can entice engineers to break the code (“Gifts and Bribes”, 2006). Unfortunately this was the case for a former manager of the Army Corps of Engineers whose greed caused him to break the ethical canons to “avoid deceptive acts”, to “conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and lawfully as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession”, and finally to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” (“Code of Ethics”). His misconduct is an example of the unethical decisions some engineers make.

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 inconsistent application of Army standards leads to unethical decisions on a daily basis. Despite an emphasis on Army values at all levels, military leaders open themselves up to make unethical decisions when they don’t adhere to set standards. Despite the Army having clear standards on height/weight, APFT, the tattoo policy, and reporting requirements, leaders often take it upon themselves to ignore the standard or create their own. Leaders have the responsibility to maintain and enforce standards which are driven by regulations. If military leaders

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

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.

Moral and ethical qualities comprise an officer’s character and help determine how to make proper and ethical decisions. “An informed ethical conscience consistent with army values strengthens leaders to make the right choices when faced with tough issues.”11 Character is indispensable for successful leadership. Army officers must embody the army values and encourage others up and down the chain to do the same.

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.

As an organizational- level leadership, he will confront many thorny problems and missions that challenge their moral criteria and military profession. In particular, when they receive the order from the upper- level, how he employ his expertise to exercise his moral leadership and undertake the tasks. Actually, both of the profession and ethic are interdependent, and inseparable. Thus, a professional commissioned officer should understand how to fit ethic into his expertise. Moreover, people would face the dilemmatic situation between the obedience of rules and the consideration of the consequence. When it comes to the moral or ethical, should I follow the deontology or consequentialism? Which one is the most critical priority to the stewardship