Ethics - Stop just saying the word

I thought this was well written.

In the Australian Army today, the word 'ethical' has become a cover-all that effectively means behaving lawfully. To describe any person, course of action or organisation as ethical is like describing Australia as 'national'. It is correct, but utterly meaningless. The word used as an adjective means nothing, because it is really a process that describes a complex examination of competing values and intentions. Our use of the word is symptomatic of the Army’s failure to develop a coherent system for exploring and teaching the third, much neglected component of land power – the moral aspect.

An understanding of ethics allows a person or organisation to evaluate complex problems and competing values. Ethical considerations apply to the use of power, the understanding of justice and the qualities that determine whether an action is 'good' or 'right'. Naturally, none of these definitions are ever fixed, or even certain, but neither are their applications purely philosophical. Ethical questions underlie the laws of armed combat. In order to understand the fundamental aspects of conflict or the Army’s place in society, the ethical considerations surrounding them must be explored in a free manner. Failure to do so results in parochial, closed-minded military professionals. Army must provide a space where they can be explored.

Without ethics (in the exploratory sense), values cannot be understood beyond a command to behave in a certain manner. Without values, morals cannot exist. Yet the moral component is a fundamental aspect of land power. Values must be understood inherently, otherwise adherence to them is simply by command – hardly moral behaviour. One has to choose to do right. To choose, one must understand. Those who cannot make the choice are merely obedient, not moral.

More here and here

Interesting.
Is every choice we make motivated by a moral consideration? Does not every soldier and officer choose to obey until such time where their conscience wouldn't let them? And on that note, is it not ludicrous to presume that without sitting together in a circle of arm chairs and discuss fundamentals of morality an armyman would be nothing but a mindless robot executing a program thrust at him from up above? Are they any less human than the rest of us? I say ludicrous to avoid calling it insulting to their characters.

But of course there is more. I shall assume a consequentionalist position in this paragraph and would like in advance to point out that I recognize its limits and hold to other mechanisms beyond those.
Say you have an officer executing a particular either morally justifiable or neutral command according to themselves, their COs and the observer. If you must not ask the officer whether they made it by choice or out of obedience, could you tell the difference? And if you cannot tell a difference, why would it possibly make one, again, unless you presume that an obedient soldier in one morally unobjectionable situation would never ever disobey an evil command?
And in fact what about morally neutral actions? What about things that you wouldn't do without being commanded, not because they are evil, but just because it wouldn't cross your mind for any other reason? What is wrong about obedience in a structure that heavily relies on a solid chain of command? And if you would do the things you happen to be commanded regardless, then why would you need that command structure in the first place? Civilian society works without a universal command structure penetrating it throughout and people do what they deem moral and avoid what they deem immoral and for the most part that works just fine. Could it be that there is a very good reason a system like that couldn't work for an armed defense force?

Finally, all of this assumes that choice is something free. Well, I didn't choose what motivates me. I didn't choose where and when and to whom I was born or how they raised me or the course of my life beyond the family. I have no say in what thoughts occur to me or the feelings I experience or why. Whenever I stop myself from a particular course of action, I do so because of a new thought or feeling that came to stop me without me having a choice in the matter. No matter how I twist it, at the end of the day I am a slave to mechanisms, causal, random or both, within my brain and outside of it, current and past, over which I neither ever had control nor, as far as I know, ever could have any control over.
Of course that free will is a notion that makes no sense on any level may be impractical, and I seldom raise the problems with it, because in the end we are influenced by our thoughts and our sharing them and that is good enough with and without free will, but if the issue specifically emphasizes the importance of choice in a matter, perhaps we should consider whether choice is something we have to begin with.

Is every choice we make motivated by a moral consideration?

I doubt it.

Does not every soldier and officer choose to obey until such time where their conscience wouldn't let them?

Pretty much. I think 'to obey' is being cast as the wrong way to look at it, such that orders are not standalone instructions but parameters within a larger set of instructions - which do include the individual's welfare to some extent and recognition that the individual might have access to information which could influence those parameters and thus the order (where applicable).

And on that note, is it not ludicrous to presume that without sitting together in a circle of arm chairs and discuss fundamentals of morality an armyman would be nothing but a mindless robot executing a program thrust at him from up above?

I don't think that is an accurate presumption but it would be ludicrous if it was.

Are they any less human than the rest of us? I say ludicrous to avoid calling it insulting to their characters.

I'd imagine warfighting can be quite dehumanizing.

But of course there is more. I shall assume a consequentionalist position in this paragraph and would like in advance to point out that I recognize its limits and hold to other mechanisms beyond those.

Yeap, I'd say so.

Say you have an officer executing a particular either morally justifiable or neutral command according to themselves, their COs and the observer. If you must not ask the officer whether they made it by choice or out of obedience, could you tell the difference?

Nope, I guess not.

And if you cannot tell a difference, why would it possibly make one, again, unless you presume that an obedient soldier in one morally unobjectionable situation would never ever disobey an evil command?

Because being engaged in knowing the circumstances of decision making is required to keep information accurate or improved versus not knowing and just making decisions - and in complex fast paced situations training is designed to solve problems fast, but this can easily be at the expense of accuracy, sometimes there is no choice but I think its a discussion about focus within the context of warfighting.

And in fact what about morally neutral actions? What about things that you wouldn't do without being commanded, not because they are evil, but just because it wouldn't cross your mind for any other reason?

Dunno, what about them?

What is wrong about obedience in a structure that heavily relies on a solid chain of command? And if you would do the things you happen to be commanded regardless, then why would you need that command structure in the first place?

Chain's of command associate responsibility to sets of duties, and the resultant access to information and authority to accomplish that. It's not about replacing the individual decision making with authority so I'm not sure what your argument is.

Civilian society works without a universal command structure penetrating it throughout and people do what they deem moral and avoid what they deem immoral and for the most part that works just fine. Could it be that there is a very good reason a system like that couldn't work for an armed defense force?

Yep, because information and authority would not be able to be used effectively for the purposes being discussed.

Finally, all of this assumes that choice is something free. Well, I didn't choose what motivates me. I didn't choose where and when and to whom I was born or how they raised me or the course of my life beyond the family. I have no say in what thoughts occur to me or the feelings I experience or why. Whenever I stop myself from a particular course of action, I do so because of a new thought or feeling that came to stop me without me having a choice in the matter. No matter how I twist it, at the end of the day I am a slave to mechanisms, causal, random or both, within my brain and outside of it, current and past, over which I neither ever had control nor, as far as I know, ever could have any control over.

Just because our sense of agency is accepted in our society as to being an individual entity, with associated responsibilities (and rights) which are exerted over that by society. How we relate to this as individuals is through some nature of sentience - and its this ability which we engineer temporally to observe and interact beyond that agency of self. The how of how we are able is what is being discussed, in a small way
:silly:

Of course that free will is a notion that makes no sense on any level may be impractical, and I seldom raise the problems with it, because in the end we are influenced by our thoughts and our sharing them and that is good enough with and without free will, but if the issue specifically emphasizes the importance of choice in a matter, perhaps we should consider whether choice is something we have to begin with.

Not useful on the battlefield perhaps LOL

May both your analytical and intellectual brains fry(short circuit). Open your hearts fot the betterment of all that is and take no credit for it.

Ethics is, ultimately, the field of philosophy that I'm least interested in. With that being said, I am still interested in it. When it comes to military, I think it would be difficult for them to encourage people seriously thinking about ethics. Say that I've read my Kant and that I've come to the conclusion that, regardless of the consequence, if I'm at war and I shoot someone with the intention to kill them, it is morally wrong. If I come to the conclusion that there are simply things that should not be done (such as killing, torture, rape, pedophilia, etc) even in extreme situations, then how can I go through with my job if I'm a soldier or if my job involves interrogation? I would undoubtedly be more hesitant to pull a trigger if I'm struggling with it as an ethical dilemma, and that could result in my death or the death of other members of "my side" of the fight (if we're taking a stereotypical army vs army military battle as an example). So I think, in a military, it may be strategically advantageous to not encourage members of the military to think critically and seriously about ethical issues.

Yeap. It looks like they are trying to push the individual as a sensor to the broader command and control (C2) processes as technology penetrates more and more, but for the most confrontational version of this.. the soldier with a rifle stoppage retreating into close quarters to resolve it, and having to pull a handgun and engage someone face to face in a room, technology or C2 really is not in the picture anymore. I think in those scenario's ethics and morality only exist at the level of is the contact either 'enemy', 'friendly' or 'non-combantant'. The distinction between the first and last gets a lot tougher in some scenario's, but in a kill or be killed situation the decision making would likely fall entirely on the duty element of the job to meet that job description and that means no individual moral or ethical consideration beyond threat/situational assessment ie what your getting paid to do. But for the rest of the time (majority) even within combat additional time and capabilities can exist to allow the individual defence person to exert their own awareness and assessment to improve the quality of information being fed into that C2. Putting the 'i' in Infantry (meaning 'information')
:lol: