Ethical Norms Of The United Convention

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,

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

When it comes to any war, soldiers are placed in dangerous situations based on the orders given to them. They are forced to make quick decisions, usually out of their control, to defend their country against its said enemy. The act of killing is in no way ethical, but when done under the circumstances of war, military duty and survival, the wrongness of it can be debated. Consequently, the act of not killing can be unethical as well, since the outcome can be the sacrifice of a fellow comrade. The process of ethical reasoning cannot be used when faced with these kinds of decision because soldiers of war are unable to see all sides of the story, making it impossible to weigh the outcomes.

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.

This is the reality of war. War is not clean cut or binary. It is dirty and and slaughter. It is cyclical and multifaceted. The carnage is a cost of war. Ethics should not be lost or sacrificed as war continues. This is in regards to the countless lives lost due to war. How many lives will be lost in order to achieve

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

We are here tonight to talk about the ethics of war. Now to some minds this phrase “the ethics of war” will likely cause raised eyebrows. “The ethics of war? What can ethics possibly have to do with war? Isn’t war evil?”

Lieutenant Lotem’s decision to conscientiously object from what his own military was doing is an interesting case in justice and ethics. One cannot deny that he disobeyed his direct orders and that, from the perspective of the Israeli military, he was essentially a criminal who refused to do his job. However, the reasons that he refused add a significant level of complexity to his case, presenting many questions and aspects for consideration. Lotem recognized that what his own military operatives were doing was unethical—a decision he came to on his own—and refused to participate in the anti-humanitarian efforts that they were ordered to do. Naturally, his refusal to comply with direct orders led to his arrest for twenty-six days (Souryal, 2014). He completely refused to adhere to his regulations, but this was not because he didn’t want to or because he felt it was a poor use of his time; his refusal stemmed from his ethical realization that the treatment

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.

Adhering to the laws of war and rules of engagement is the legal responsibility of all American service members; however these guidelines are rooted in morality and ethics. War is harsh and demanding on the human body and mind. Without a universal, moral guideline, the chaos of war often leads to immoral acts against the enemy.

I. INTRODUCTION In The Ethics of Killing in War (2006), Jeff McMahan advocates for the rejection of moral equality of combatants. His argument is built upon exposing flaws in Michael Walzer’s traditional description of permissibility of killing in war and provides an alternate model, the responsibility criterion. In this essay, I will explain the traditional just war theory and McMahan’s alternate responsibility-based approach. Further, I will present a number of objections to the responsibility criterion and consider my personal responses to these, as well as those McMahan discusses in his paper.

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.

A civilized society cannot function without rules, laws, and codes of proper conduct. This statement may seem out of place in the context of warfighting; however, this is one place where it is most necessary. The fighters, who often act at the behest of their home nation, must have a code of conduct which allows them to make the correct decision in a given situation in a combat zone. Rules of Engagement fill this gap for the national militaries of the civilized world and serve as a soldier’s code of conduct in the field.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.