Are Situational Ethics ever warranted for Officers or NCO?

LTC Orlando Illi — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:57:26 -0400

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2017 12:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:59:02 -0400

In their treatment or the treatment of their subordinates?

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 20 at 2017 12:59 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:59:08 -0400

If not, they should be.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 20 at 2017 1:03 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:03:47 -0400

Please define the terms of the discussion. "Situational ethics" can mean vastly different things to different people.

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Jul 20 at 2017 1:08 PM

SSG Robert Perrotto — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:08:15 -0400

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 SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 20 at 2017 1:09 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:09:30 -0400

LTC Orlando Illi "Situational Ethics"
Sir, You would need to define that phrase and provide context, for others to provide an opinion that is relevant.

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made Jul 20 at 2017 1:10 PM

LTC Orlando Illi — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:10:29 -0400

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 from

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jul 20 at 2017 1:30 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:30:04 -0400

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.
https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Military-Profession-Malham-Wakin/dp/ [login to see]

Amazon.com: War, Morality, And The Military Profession (9780813303604): Malham M Wakin, EDITOR *:...

Amazon.com: War, Morality, And The Military Profession (9780813303604): Malham M Wakin, EDITOR *: Books

Response by Sgt Brendan Bigney made Jul 20 at 2017 1:56 PM

Sgt Brendan Bigney — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:56:18 -0400

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.
But your ethics shouldn't go out the door.

Response by MSgt Jason McClish made Jul 20 at 2017 1:58 PM

MSgt Jason McClish — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:58:33 -0400

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 PFC Eric Parrish made Jul 20 at 2017 2:32 PM

PFC Eric Parrish — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:32:46 -0400

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 PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jul 20 at 2017 2:51 PM

PO3 Mitchell Haynie — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:51:33 -0400

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 Sgt Brendan Bigney made Jul 20 at 2017 3:40 PM

Sgt Brendan Bigney — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:40:56 -0400

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.

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

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.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1616555.Unit_731

Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America —...

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Jul 20 at 2017 5:46 PM

SGT Tony Clifford — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:46:51 -0400

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.

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 SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 20 at 2017 9:07 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 21:07:47 -0400

Ethics are subjective and individual, so really ethics are always unique and situational.

Response by SSG Lyle O'Rorke made Jul 20 at 2017 9:50 PM

SSG Lyle O'Rorke — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 21:50:45 -0400

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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Engagement_(film)

Rules of Engagement (film) - Wikipedia

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.