Ethics can be defined as rules governing an individual or a professional body; philosophically it refers to the study of moral value of human behaviour, principles and rules governing it. Hence military ethics refers to principles enforced and clarified in administrative structure directing members of a military in consistent with their standards and values as dictated by their military tradition. Example of ethical issues in a military institution include: Nepotism, Age discrimination, Gender inequality, Race biasness or abuse, justification of using force and the ethics of killing that will institute the focal point of reference.
During war, human values are always ignored in favour of fellow soldier and furthermore to serve and protect the United States of America. The justification is that lies in the soldier following orders often referring to killing the enemy and offset of that referring a soldier will be killed by the enemy he or she had sworn to destroy unless he or she follow the orders. The sole task of a soldier is to follow orders from the commander whether it contradicts his or her moral and ethic feeling, going against the orders attracts heavy punishment not only to the individual soldier but also his or her fellows.
Nonetheless, it presents additional ethical problems in the military as a whole for example a soldier can act outside their orders or even among themselves when the orders are ethically wrong resulting to regrets on the soldier’s of questions of why he committed to war crimes in the first place ending up with a black mark in his or her entire life.
Secondly on the part of the commander, he or she should be clear on judgement; wrong judgement put the soldiers to committing all sorts of atrocities beyond their control, resulting in mayhem and brutal deaths.
Thirdly, in religious context, a soldier ethical decision to defend once life, and highlighting the difference between self defence and a ‘mistake killing’, this presumes that the soldier has all the discretion of the very value of human life. Putting the soldier in lay mans language immune to murder as killing is not seen as a crime.
Classical theory (utilitarianism)
The theory of utilitarianism subject the rightness of policies, choices, decisions and acts by their consequences for humans. It stands on the idea that acts are appropriate or inappropriate if they result in the best consequences. Bentham (1748–1832).
The range component of the utilitarianism suggest that everyone affected by killing should have their desires taken into account for example the September 11th 2001 U.S bombing victims wanted the terrorist brought to justice, its only through utilitarianism that that an act can be punished. This could be seen in the U.S military search for terrorist after the majority of the population gave them a go ahead through representatives of the congress; that later came to an intense anti terrorist campaign targeting the masterminds such as the killings of Osama Bin Laden and several followers of Al-Qaida and Al Shabab terrorist groups.
Utilitarianism yields more happiness in the long run as it functions to settle conflicts of value and disputes for the majority of the population, as it encourages a democratic way to decision making preventing the minority to lead.
Moreover utilitarianism approach in the military meant that each individual would be treated separately on the grounds of his or her actions. For example when a soldier commits a crime or contravenes the rules and principles of the institution, he or she should receive punishment from the superiors.
Relativism
Utilitarianism is relative, meaning any practice action could be allowed for example killing for the sake of ideology or pleasure, this has a negative impact on the forces image on the public for example the alleged footage leaked from the wiki leaks website that depicted the U.S military in a helicopter shooting at the civilians in the Afghanistan while making jokes about the helpless women and children. Moreover in Iraq the Iraqi militia groups’ fight with specific hatred based ideologies targeting the U.S and her allies, this has seen the emergence of suicide bombers all around the world.
Moreover, utilitarianism allows for cruelty or torture in the military in place where the soldiers capture an enemy and subject them in to a hardcore torture sessions that promote pain. This has been witnessed in various military wars around the world where captured soldiers are taken through torture sessions.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism also allows the sacrifice of one subject (soldier) for the sake of the wider community, for example in during the war, if saving a civilian, means risking a soldiers life then the risk is worth taking. For example in the in the war torn countries of Africa, professionals from abroad are always evacuated in every way possible out of the environment.
After all the deliberation, as much as utilitarianism represents the interest of the majority, relativism still holds the key component in addressing the roles of different personnel in the military and the whole community at large. It is false stating that unintentional deaths do not amount an evil that be avoided, if at all possible, on the other hand ignoring this distinction will make the military personnel involved in unintentional killings to the same level as the usual terrorists. This is because utilitarianism is prone to be misused if used in a self-serving way for example in situations where ethical safeguards are needed the most. For example in the wars in Afghanistan, Rwanda and Somali, the western countries through the military ensure they evacuate their experts in time leaving behind thousands of refugees who though are under U.N protection to be massacred by rebels and warlords, instead of protecting the majority civilian who are in high need of protection from them (soldiers).
It is doubtful if the loyalty within the military is beneficial since it gives the loyalty gives priority to the interest of a group or an individual; this enhances the possibility of an increasing secrecy in the line of duty of many soldiers through themselves and the superiors. Nonetheless, utilitarianism ethics do not work very well in most military settings, since it is not necessarily that the consequences to all parties involved are measured equally in a warfare scenario it can be as well unavoidable because in the end no enemy life has any value since they can attack anyone: including children, infants, bring sorrow and pain to the adult men and women thereby undermining the enemy’s resolve. For example the decision by the U.S military to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as much as the rules of law and its rights are meant to protect the civilians.
The ugly truth is that the war on terror has resulted in many deaths than terrorist attacks in recent years not forgetting the September 11, 2001. Hence a conclusion that many would not like to hear as military personnel involved in the unintentional killings can be classified on the same level as terrorist. However not attacking a terrorist for example the Al Qaida and the Taliban, will increase probably the chances of them using civilians as a shield to engage in terror activities.
Perhaps being moral includes education and training, the idea of virtue, knowledge of a virtue is not equal as possessing it, hence unethical behaviour is shaped by the larger organization case of military(political leadership).nevertheless people with very high ethical standards consequently can behave unethically as a long as they can ways to justify their behaviour. Ethics education does increases the moral awareness among the military personnel who undertakes it, but that does not mean that it contributes to a straightforward and better behaviour.
Conclusion
In the military, characters are built and virtues promoted with the intension of increasing military effectiveness. There is some convergence in what militaries expect in improving their ethics and good outcomes and it is all about putting more weight to the interest all the stakeholders involved. As much it is impossible to offer exact solutions to the problems that today’s military struggle with we should try and understand what always go wrong when military forces are deployed in countries that are far away .The military ethic should be more outward looking with the military personnel stressing social cohesion, instead of group loyalty and forever promote respect not only to colleagues but also includes outsiders.
Killing can be justified in the occurrence of unjust attack on an innocent person, all individuals have prima facie the right not to be killed, however this right is not absolute, hence someone can forfeit this right if he or she threatens or takes the lives of innocent people. In practice soldiers should be trained and need not be encouraged to hate their enemies for effectiveness in combat and last but not least be encouraged to disallow immoral orders.
References
Francis, T. &. (Nov 11, 2010). Military Ethics and Virtues:.
Pierce, A. C. (2010). Strategy, ethics, and the "War on Terrorism. Berkeley Public Policy Press, 2003.
primoratz, i. (2008). Military ethics. Ashgate Pub. Co.
Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books, 2000.
