David Underhill – Monday 30 Aug 2004) – P.63-80

 

The US Constitution and the Moral Foundations of Military Service: Conflicts of Principles and Loyalties (63)

  • Warrior Code of Conduct
    • Non-combatants are immune
    • Treat POWs with restraint
    • Use deadly force only when justified
  • Countries are viewed as having the right to run themselves as they see fit
  • US Officer Commission Oath
    • Commit loyalty to the Constitution – the framework for universal moral principles is contained within it
      • Protect interests with even-handed impartiality
    • Commitment to sacrifice
      • Self for shipmate, shipmates for ship, ship for the mission
  • Even minor disobedience of reasonable orders shows a profound betrayal of trust
    • Either obey or resign
  • Natural Law vs. State Law
    • Even well-intentioned democratic gov can be guilty of moral error
    • Disobedience is a last resort – other paths to remedy the problem must be attempted

 

The Moral Foundations of Military Service – Martin Cook (65)

Ethics of Military Service

  • Clausewitz – the real purpose of the military is to serve the national interest … if so then:
    • Rhetoric about military virtues is a screen to hide the fact that the military only serves national interests
    • Only absolute pacifists deny the right to self-defense (resist border incursion, protect lives)
      • Self-defense often stretched to encompass vague ideas
  • States Importance
    • States with boundaries and political heads not like today’s until the Reformation
    • After the 30 Years War, the Peace of Westphalia was established to prevent religion from causing further war
      • Emphasized war was for defense of territory and political
    • Sovereign states analogous to a free individual, able to pursue the life and beliefs of their choosing, free from interference from others
    • Role of the military is to defend a political and social order from threats
  • Officer must serve with integrity and professionalism
    • Not their responsibility to assess the state’s or war’s moral worth
  • Killing for One’s Country
    • One must serve the state as it is, not as a fantasy state that does no wrong
    • Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer: One serves the state to protect the common lives shared by citizens
      • The sacrifice required by common life must be willingly accepted to have moral justification
  • GEN Eisenhower’s Attitude: refusing to meet with the German GEN because he believed that professional soldier was not on the same moral level as he was
    • Suggests a new thinking about warfare
    • Kuwait was a good example of the Westphalian paradigm, but it is tainted because of oil
    • Kosovo was legit but the protest was that Kosovo was not of the nation’s interest
      • If this is why we stayed out, then claims to moral justifications are false and the war is just politics
  • Reasons to serve
    • Westphalian answer (defense of common life)
    • Universalizing answering terms of transcendent moral and political values

 

Ethics in Military Service (71)

  • Growing gap exists between military and civilians
    • Could lead to the military believing itself morally superior to civilian culture
    • Could also cause a loss of mutual trust and respect
  • People are drawn to the military for benefits (education, training, travel)
  • People stay in the military because they see an ideal human community grounded in service to others

 

Constitutional Ethics – Col Paul E. Roush (Ret.) (75)

  • Initial fear of a standing army caused its control to be distributed between branches
  • Placing power in the hands of a small minority was seen as inviting tyranny
  • Presidential Constraints – Commander-In-Chief, so he has authority over all military commanders
  • Congressional Constraints – Power of the purse; regulates the armed forces – UCMJ, admin stuff ($, retirement, etc)
  • Judicial Constraints – few cases; usually give wide latitude
  • Supreme Law of the Land
    • Military cannot ignore Congress
    • Agreements the US makes are binding on its military too (Geneva, etc)
  • Constitutional Paradigm – four principles guide its practical application

1.        Priority of loyalties: Constitution, Mission, Service, Ship, Shipmate, Self

2.        Resolve conflicting loyalties then act

3.        Follow the above principles or resign

4.        If the act is believed to be a greater evil than disobeying the above, then disobeying an order to attain a higher good can be a worthwhile risk, though it may result in severe consequences … prerequisites for this:

      • Fundamental violation of justice; non-trivial
      • Attempt to remedy the problem before choosing disobedience
      • Don’t hide disobedience – make it public, and warn superiors in advance
      • Must be willing to accept full legal consequences
    • We are taught to disobey orders so that we can be autonomous agents
    • Applies to things that will haunt you – NOT trivial