Summary Of The Ethical Dilemmas In Platoon

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,

Colonel (Col) Michael Steele’s resolute beliefs regarding how to prepare his unit for combat and his bravado demeanor commanded respect from other bemused military officers. While serving as Commanding Officer (CO), 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Col Steele aggressively cultivated a command climate focused on three core principles: personal protection, precision, and lethality. Although these three core principles narrowly aligned with the Army's "Soldier's Creed", Col Steele’s principles did not reinforce the Army’s individual and organizational core values. 3rd Brigade’s disassociated ethical subculture fostered a toxic environment which compromised both subordinate commanders' and individual soldiers' moral standards to various extents. Col Steele’s vague guidance concerning proper ethical behavior during the execution of high stress Counter-Insurgency (COIN) missions resulted in subordinates failing to conduct kinetic operations in accordance with established Army ethical standards. The military establishment shall remember May 09, 2006 as the day the revered "Rakkasans" failed to personify the unit's motto of "Ne Desit Virtus," meaning "Let Valor Not Fail". For on this day, four soldiers assigned to Charlie Company, known to the “Rakkasans” as the "Kill Company", murdered eight unarmed Iraqi citizens during Operation Iron Triangle. These four soldiers failed to understand the nature and consequences of their iniquities as they could no longer distinguish

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

When faced with a difficult choice a person will think the multitude of different options over before making their final decision. Do they go with the choice that will benefit them or the choice that will benefit others? Many decisions are made on the circumstances of the situation a person is in. If a person is told in a time of war to participate in an act, that person will participate due to the fear of the consequences, even if that person does not know what the consequences are. In Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher Browning the men of the battalion are faced with many options during their time in the battalion. Choices that include killing Jews in a firing squad to

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.

Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 embodies the idea of the corrupt selfishness of the military system that dehumanizes the men of it’s ranks. Often, the bureaucratically inclined superior officers focus only on personal advancement. In doing so, they eliminate any shred of humanity of the men who serve under them. Ultimately, each commanding officer demonstrates a complete lack of moral judgment that considers only their own personal agenda at the cost of the common soldier.

The ethical issue that I have chosen to discuss is war. This issue has been a common thing all around the world, since the first ever war in 2334 BCE (History, 2008). War can be started for a number of reasons, such as; Economic gain, territorial gain, religion, nationalism or revenge (Owlcation, 2015). Wars can be fought in all different ways and has the potential to shape and influence the future dramatically. War and civil wars can have severe effects and outcomes, they can be detrimental to the people, buildings, religion and living conditions of countries and states that are part of the war, whether by choice or not.

This movie about the Vietnam War showed not only the defeat of the U.S. in a war but it also showed the destruction of the moral of soldiers. The Soldiers knew in their minds that the enemy was the North Vietnamese Army however; they acted like the enemy was themselves.

The 1986 movie Platoon directed by Oliver Stone depicts the Vietnam War through the eyes of Chris Taylor, a young and inexperienced infantry soldier. What differentiates the movie Platoon from other Vietnam War movies, is that in Platoon soldiers are dealing with both external and internal conflict. Externally, the men are fighting against the Vietcong, and internally the Platoon is divided between morally following Staff Sergeant Barnes or Sergeant Elias. Amidst all of this conflict lies Taylor, who if faced with a number of ethical dilemmas in which he is required to make tough decisions. Some of these decisions I agree with, but a majority of Taylor’s decisions, I would have handled them much differently is I was

This clear message was given when Oliver Stone, gives an introduction of the war by starts off were the one the soldiers say this is all "Hell...the nonattendance of all reason. That what this is. For hell 's sake." Proposes that he unquestionably didn 't think the US was right in having any kind of presence in Vietnam. As well in the movie Lieutenant Wolfe was shown as actually being responsible for the unit, from a hierarchy of leadership and command outlook point. Being that as it may, it 's truly Barnes ' platoon. He runs the show, and the other soldiers listen to him, until mid-way of the movie that is, the point at which the company divides directly into halves into two different groups the individuals who look to Elias as their leader, and the individuals who look to Barnes. The fight and politicking between the groups contradicting commands it shown more towards the second half of the movie after the fight at the village scene they had with one another. That is when we see the more political aspect of the movie. Showing the frustrations that soldiers went through as well as Barnes and Elias which caused them conflict internally within themselves and others, leading to questioning their own moral beliefs and actions due to political reasoning the government arose.

Dawson and Downey's participation illustrates ethical relativism because in the base in which they are stationed following the command of a Cornel you follow those orders no matter what. Ethical relativism is basically knowing what right and wrong in a person's culture and in this situation the culture is the base in which the soldiers are stationed. We can evaluate decisions as moral or immoral by using the golden rule as stated in the leadership book. If you would want something to be done onto you then don't do it to somebody else. The action was following the code red which both of them did anyways because they where both scared of the

War is many things. It may be many different things depending on each individual. Many soldiers get trained so their mentality is to characterize their opponents as less than human, so their lives lose all worth. Some soldiers, however, are not prepared for this, even though they have been trained. One thing is training for it, another thing is actually killing a human being. As they kill more people, something so immoral becomes normalized for them. All they have seen changes their mind, while all of their dreams get swept aside by bloody hands. Innocent people die, and the warfield is forever affected by all the destruction and long-term ecological impacts and effects on humans because of chemical weapons like in the Vietnam war. In this essay, I will explain how the Vietnam war was morally wrong.

Up to this day, war is still used as a tool to achieve political ends. However, respect for individual rights is also highly valued nowadays, thus, resulting to a tension. To note, even if the military uses the most discriminate of war efforts, many are still killed and collateral damage has become prevalent (Draper, 2015, p.1). Eye in the Sky is a movie that talks about the morality tale of a modern warfare. If the decision of whether to proceed or abort the mission lies in my hands, I will choose to proceed in order to kill a group of dangerous terrorists even if it would result to the death of an innocent little girl. Although in the lens of morality, such a decision is not right, I believe that this has to be done