LTC Orlando Illi2749229<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Are Situational Ethics ever warranted for Officers or NCO?2017-07-20T12:57:26-04:00LTC Orlando Illi2749229<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Are Situational Ethics ever warranted for Officers or NCO?2017-07-20T12:57:26-04:002017-07-20T12:57:26-04:00SGT Private RallyPoint Member2749234<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In their treatment or the treatment of their subordinates?Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2017 12:59 PM2017-07-20T12:59:02-04:002017-07-20T12:59:02-04:00SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth2749235<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If not, they should be.Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 20 at 2017 12:59 PM2017-07-20T12:59:08-04:002017-07-20T12:59:08-04:00CPT Jack Durish2749245<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Please define the terms of the discussion. "Situational ethics" can mean vastly different things to different people.Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 20 at 2017 1:03 PM2017-07-20T13:03:47-04:002017-07-20T13:03:47-04:00SSG Robert Perrotto2749266<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>need context for this question - are you asking something like - one of your soldiers shoots and kills someone breaking in to their home as opposed to a soldier shooting and killing someone breaking his car windshield?Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Jul 20 at 2017 1:08 PM2017-07-20T13:08:15-04:002017-07-20T13:08:15-04:00SGM Erik Marquez2749270<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="1022009" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/1022009-ltc-orlando-illi">LTC Orlando Illi</a> "Situational Ethics" <br />Sir, You would need to define that phrase and provide context, for others to provide an opinion that is relevant.Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 20 at 2017 1:09 PM2017-07-20T13:09:30-04:002017-07-20T13:09:30-04:00LTC Orlando Illi2749276<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My question was more in tune with the fact that in 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli published a book titled "The Prince". His thesis that "...the the end justifies the means...." has become synonymous with a leader abdicating morality and ethics in the pursuit of power. Machiavelli opined that we can easily sacrifice our ethics to achieve what we see as a necessary end. Thus, as leaders we are in a constant struggle to maintain an ethical code at the expense of expediency. That struggle is very real and adhering to an ethical code is not always easy.This is the context from where my question come fromResponse by LTC Orlando Illi made Jul 20 at 2017 1:10 PM2017-07-20T13:10:29-04:002017-07-20T13:10:29-04:00Col Joseph Lenertz2749343<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think Ethics should be a mandatory part of every officer's professional education. Professor Wakin was my professor of Ethics at USAFA. I will never forget him. I highly recommend his book. His thesis is an absolute rejection of Machiavelli's.<br /><a target="_blank" href="https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Military-Profession-Malham-Wakin/dp/">https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Military-Profession-Malham-Wakin/dp/</a> [login to see] <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default">
<div class="pta-link-card-picture">
</div>
<div class="pta-link-card-content">
<p class="pta-link-card-title">
<a target="blank" href="https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Military-Profession-Malham-Wakin/dp/0813303605">Amazon.com: War, Morality, And The Military Profession (9780813303604): Malham M Wakin, EDITOR *:...</a>
</p>
<p class="pta-link-card-description">Amazon.com: War, Morality, And The Military Profession (9780813303604): Malham M Wakin, EDITOR *: Books</p>
</div>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jul 20 at 2017 1:30 PM2017-07-20T13:30:04-04:002017-07-20T13:30:04-04:00Sgt Brendan Bigney2749473<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think that's something that just comes with leadership. It's not all black and white. Much of the time there is a lot of gray as well as the priorities. You do one thing and it has consequences, you do another thing and that too comes with its own set of consequences. If it were all black and white then we would be going down a dangerous path. If there was always a definitive answer there wouldn't be a need for leaders.<br />But your ethics shouldn't go out the door.Response by Sgt Brendan Bigney made Jul 20 at 2017 1:56 PM2017-07-20T13:56:18-04:002017-07-20T13:56:18-04:00MSgt Jason McClish2749486<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In my opinion, it's a simple no. Ethics must be followed and strictly adhered to at all time. It's never ok to commit a crime, regardless of the circumstances. If a superior gives a subordinate an order that is unethical or criminal, it's the subordinate's duty to "disobey" the order and report it back through the chain of command to the best of his/her ability. Subordinates are to never blindly follow orders of this nature, as they will be charged with crimes themselves. "I didn't know" or "I was just following orders" never prevails in court and hasn't in several decades. Do the right thing.Response by MSgt Jason McClish made Jul 20 at 2017 1:58 PM2017-07-20T13:58:33-04:002017-07-20T13:58:33-04:00PFC Eric Parrish2749609<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Even though we would all like to be ethical at all times. At some points in time accomplishing the mission takes precedence to our personal beliefs. I still think everyone should be as ethical as possible and strive to have a good moral compass.Response by PFC Eric Parrish made Jul 20 at 2017 2:32 PM2017-07-20T14:32:46-04:002017-07-20T14:32:46-04:00PO3 Mitchell Haynie2749675<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the question regards basic fundamental characteristics of "Ethical" thought or action, then by its mere intent it cannot be situational, or it has no fidelity in its own meaning. Ethics are tied to a specific set of values, beliefs, rules or behaviors that are considered "acceptable", hence if we apply those differently depending on the circumstances then that fidelity to those original reasons are lost.Response by PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jul 20 at 2017 2:51 PM2017-07-20T14:51:33-04:002017-07-20T14:51:33-04:00Sgt Brendan Bigney2749911<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I'd also like to throw out for thought "Operation Paperclip" where we brought in German Nazis to develop critical pieces of technology for the U.S.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html">https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html</a><br /><br />Also, after WWII we intentionally allowed Japan to sweep their war crimes under the rug in exchange for the data and results from their inhuman experiments conducted on the Chinese. The information we gained from this agreement played a large role in defense against chemical and biological agents but also played a large role in the forward progression of the medical field and provided a better understanding of the human body.<br /><br /><a target="_blank" href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1616555.Unit_731">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1616555.Unit_731</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default">
<div class="pta-link-card-picture">
<img src="https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/194/899/qrc/logo.png?1500579237">
</div>
<div class="pta-link-card-content">
<p class="pta-link-card-title">
<a target="blank" href="https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html">Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America —...</a>
</p>
<p class="pta-link-card-description"></p>
</div>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
Response by Sgt Brendan Bigney made Jul 20 at 2017 3:40 PM2017-07-20T15:40:56-04:002017-07-20T15:40:56-04:00SGT Tony Clifford2750369<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is a very interesting question. Obviously the question "does the end justify the means?" is meant to be debated. In that context, no. The road to hell is paved in good intentions. That's not to say I don't recognize grey areas, as there are plenty in life. If you're asking whether or not a person should sacrifice ethics or morals, I can say no. As to laws or other rules, that is a different story. For instance, Jim Crow laws were wrong and needed to be challenged sometimes the challenges were in and of themselves violations of the law. No morals or ethics were violated by breaking those laws. <br /><br />So my question back to you is, do you believe that violating rules or laws are a breach of ethics or morals? Follow up question, can following the law be a violation of ethics or morals?Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Jul 20 at 2017 5:46 PM2017-07-20T17:46:51-04:002017-07-20T17:46:51-04:00SFC Michael Hasbun2750989<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Ethics are subjective and individual, so really ethics are always unique and situational.Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 20 at 2017 9:07 PM2017-07-20T21:07:47-04:002017-07-20T21:07:47-04:00SSG Lyle O'Rorke2751132<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I know it may not be right but there may actually be times when it could be ok in my opinion. Like in this movie. <a target="_blank" href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Engagement_(film)">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Engagement_(film)</a> <div class="pta-link-card answers-template-image type-default">
<div class="pta-link-card-picture">
<img src="https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/194/995/qrc/Rules_of_Engagement_Poster.jpg?1500601844">
</div>
<div class="pta-link-card-content">
<p class="pta-link-card-title">
<a target="blank" href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Engagement_(film)">Rules of Engagement (film) - Wikipedia</a>
</p>
<p class="pta-link-card-description">Rules of Engagement is a 2000 American war film directed by William Friedkin, written by Jim Webb and starring Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson plays U.S. Marine Colonel Terry Childers, who is brought to court-martial after men under Childers' orders kill a large number of civilians outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen.</p>
</div>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
Response by SSG Lyle O'Rorke made Jul 20 at 2017 9:50 PM2017-07-20T21:50:45-04:002017-07-20T21:50:45-04:002017-07-20T12:57:26-04:00