Are Situational Ethics ever warranted for Officers or NCO?

CPT Jack Durish - this is a prime example of abdicating ethics and morality. I have struggled to understand how this could have occurred in a civilized society. I have read the books, discussed this with German Officers at NATO and in the United States as well as my College Professors with no real answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen

The thing is, whatever options you choose in war are opened for use by the enemy. For instance, in a senate discussion (hearing?) about whether President Bush authorized waterboarding one congressman stated that if we did it to their boys they could do it to our sons and daughters.

Keep loyal to your men; remember Nichilo Machiavelli was killed by the state

PO2 (Join to see) - "If we do it, they can do it" is not and never was the prime motivator behind humane treatment of prisoners. When have we engaged in warfare against an enemy that followed the laws of land warfare as they pertain to POW's?

Remember when ISIS burned the Jordanian pilot in a cage. Who would be taken alive by ISIS? How many of the bastards would you take with you to hell before you surrendered. We treat prisoners well to preserve the lives of our men and women who are capturing prisoners instead of getting killed by combatants that would rather die than surrender.

That's what we call an ethical dilemma. Whenever either of two choices has some negative consequences, it creates an ethical dilemma for us. We have to make a decision based on either criteria we've thought about before, or come up with our own criteria on the spot. This is where you might have heard about "the most good" or "good for the most people" or "harms the fewest people" or does the least harm." These are some of the criteria people use to resolve ethical dilemmas. The grey areas are what leaders really get paid for; the black/white areas are easiest for anyone to resolve, but the grey areas are the real challenges. Great comment, Sgt Brendan Bigney!

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 is not always easy.This is the context from where my question come from

perhaps I should be a little less with the reference - are you asking something like getting your humvee out for a mission with the fire extenguisher a day out of tolerance as opposed to it being months out of tolerance? while both are wrong, and should never happen, the sad truth is it does occur, and at that point an ethical decision needs to made.

LTC Orlando Illi - ok - thanks for clarifying - in that context the answer is an adamant no, at least when it came to my personal standards, the ends do not justify the means. Iin the scenario I gave with the fire extiguishers, it is a deadline, thus the vehicle could not go, have I been over ruled on something like that, absolutely, but I know that I did the hard right over the easy wrong.

utilizing the ideology of Machiavelli would make us no better than the people and groups that we oppose, it justifies any atrocity committed in the name of the end goal. Nuking Bagdhad to eliminate Hussein would fall into that.

Sir, I would not limit ethics to just officers, but include it at every level of professional development through out the ranks

SSG Robert Perrotto - I agree, ethics cannot be limited to officers. I just don't feel qualified to speak to NCO professional education requirements.

It's very difficult to 'teach' ethics as a topic by itself. Ethics are so integrated with philosophy you can't really understand ethics without at least a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings. Ethics is also later connected to the law, in practice, so without understanding some of the legal aspects of ethical decision making, it's difficult to understand the practical application of ethics in peacetime and in war. It's hard to roll all that up into a one- or two-hour block of instruction at C&GSC or ANCOC (I don't have the new name at hand).

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 is not always easy.This is the context from where my question come from

Then the answer is NO, as hard as that can be.. Sacrificing ethics for the sake of power or expediency is not ok.
In other scenarios it can be perceived "Situational Ethics" but I opine it is appropriate actions for one scenario that would be inappropriate (unethical) in another.

Active threat update that states two bases have been hit by insider threat civilians workers using women and suicide vests this morning.
Scenario 1:
Shooting a woman as she approaches the front gate in daylight, told to halt in her native language, yet continues to approach.. you have standoff and reasonable protection from the largest suicide vest that could be hidden under her dress.
Scenario 2:
Shooting a woman as she approaches the front gate in daylight, told to halt in her native language, yet continues to approach.. you have NO standoff and NO barrier between her and your men, plus a high value target of civilian male laborers receiving pay for the week, and no protection from the largest suicide vest that could be hidden under her dress.
I perceive one of those Scenarios as unneeded and unethical to engage the potential threat (flat view, more data, time perceived actions could change the decision) and the second Scenario to be likely justified.

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 is not always easy.This is the context from where my question come from

LTC Orlando Illi - Thank you for clarifying. My understanding of situation ethics is more in line with Christian writers like Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr where agape, or unconditional love, should be a consideration for our actions in relation to moral laws. Under these ideals personal enrichment or power is not a consideration.

As an example: Suicide, or the killing of oneself, is a moral imperative, and sometimes a law, that is prohibited by some as an absolute. If you are in a a situation that you willingly give up your life for another, is that still suicide? Some would say that is absolutely killing oneself and is prohibited. However, most of us would grant that is more of a sacrifice and altruism; therefore, we grant pardon for those who knowingly do that. That would be an example of agape, unconditional love. "He hath no greater love than to lay down his life for another." There is the famous example of a situation in which a man has cancer and is told that if he takes pills he has several years to live (he knows he will still die), but if he does not he will die in six months. He has an insurance policy which will expire in a year providing his family with security to live without him. What does he do? Tough call.