Defense Ethics - Assignment Example

 Defense Ethics Professionalism Case Scenario In the capacity of Above Water Weapons Officer (AWWO) in a frigate, one is made to remunerate on the statement relayed directly by the Captain regarding the supposed results of a live fire exercise. Actual results from the tug indicate a number of hits with some misses. The Captain, however, averred that the results were incorrectly reported; as he alleged that there were no misses. In this regard, the following questions and concerns would be addressed using ethical theories on military professionalism. 1. Are you obligated to obey the Captain’s order: a. Legally – Why or why not? As indicated in the readings, under Lesson 10 on Military Professionalism, “every member of the Canadian forces on enrolment is required to make a solemn affirmation... the emphasis of the affirmation puts on loyalty and lawfulness. The basic obligations arising from the solemn affirmation then are to be loyal and to obey the law” (PSE402: Lesson 10, 2010, p. 1/8). Using this as the guiding principle, as AWWO, the solemn affirmation dictates that legally, one is obligated to decide according to the principles of loyalty and obeying the law. The situation is actually silent with regards to the Captain’s statement as being accurate or true. One can assume two things: (1) the results received initially from the tug boat was actually inaccurate; or, (2) the Captain’s statement was inaccurate and he wanted to report incorrect firing results to create a good image towards the fleet gunnery competition. The veracity of the information could initially be determined by confirming the actual results from the tug boat. If, upon confirmation, the error was acknowledged, then, by all counts, one should obey the Captain’s order. Otherwise, if the second scenario is true, that the Captain deliberately wanted to report incorrect firing results to create an illusion of perfection and thereby indicate that they are the best and possibly win the fleet gunnery competition; then, by all legal means, the Captain’s order should be disobeyed for violations of the solemn affirmation on obeying the law. The law always require adherence to the highest standards of truth based on facts. b. Morally – Why or Why not? To response to the question on moral grounds, one can use the readings from Lesson 11 stipulating that although “loyalty is a functional military necessity, which also implies the need for obedience... (where) most orders do not require blind obedience or instantaneous obedience... (and where) loyalty should be broadly based on personal integrity and trust” (PSE 402: Lesson 11, 2010, p. 4). Further, as emphasized in the same discourse, “although immediate obligation is to the chain of command, the highest obligation is to humanity at large” (PSE 402: Lesson 11, 2010, p. 6). In addition, another relevant point presented under Lesson 11 is Huntington’s discussion of justifying obedience versus disobedience, to wit: “Huntington is only referring to lawful orders. He does not imply that a subordinate is obligated to obey a clearly unlawful order” (PSE 402: Lesson 11, 201, p. 8). With the foregoing supporting statements, as AWWO, one should clearly disobey the Captain’s order (presuming scenario 2 that the Captain deliberately intends to report inaccurate results) due to unlawful order, which is contrary to moral grounds and disregards professionalism in terms of integrity and the obligation to uphold the highest standards of the military profession for the sake of humanity. When one decides to obey the order, which in the first place was unlawful, it would be a precursor for future orders that could be given and expected to be followed despite of being based on lies and immoral grounds. One should remain steadfast in adhereing to the values of truth, integrity, and honor above loyalty to unworthy and compromising cause. 2. Using the Statement of Defence Ethics in the Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics (2002), identify ethical considerations in terms of : a. Ethical principles According to the Defence Ethics Program (DEP), ethics is defined as being concerned with the following: “(1) establishing the principles and obligations that govern the right actions and practices of institutions and individuals in society; (2) determining right and wrong; and (3) choosing to do what is right” (Defense Ethics Program, 2005, p. 14). Further, the DEP’s guidelines indicate the ethical considerations in terms of ethical principles are governed by three general ethical approaches: the compliance-based; preventive-based; and value-based approaches (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 3), of which the valued-based approach has been identified to provide the primary ethical principle for its development. In addition, the scope of the ethical values for DEP was noted to be grounded “in human beings and in relationships” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 5). In this regard, any decision is evaluated, reviewed and premised on protecting the rights and interests of people, which, as noted, “is consistent with accepted views on ethics, since ethics is generally concerned with principles and obligations that govern all actions and practices” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 6). More precisely, the three general principles contained in the DEP are as follows: (1) Principle 1: Respect and dignity of all persons; (2) Principle II: Serve Canada before self; and (3) Principle III: Obey and support lawful authority” (PSE402, 2010, p. 6/8). b. Ethical obligations From a review of Lesson 10 and from the guidelines presented under the Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics, the six ethical obligations contained in the DEP are: (1) Integrity (“the requirement to consistently give precedence to ethical values in our decisions and actions” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 11); (2) Loyalty (“standing by their commitments to the nation” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 12); where keeping promises (identified as closely related to the obligation of loyalty where in this case, honouring promises are identified as crucial) fall under this category; (3) Courage (“facing up to and dealing with anything that is recognized as dangerous, difficult, or a cause of pain, instead of avoiding it” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 12); (4) Honesty (practice of being open, frank and sincere in dealings and endeavours); and (5) Fairness (treating people, groups, and situations justly, equitably, and without bias” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 13); (6) Responsibility (“exercises and maintains integrity” (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, p. 14) where elements of accountability, competency, and non-injury are considered of prime importance. c. Types of ethical dilemma The Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics presented the types of ethical dilemma in three general categories: (1) the uncertainty dilemma which is of general nature but where no clear indication of right and wrong could be simply inferred); (2) competing obligations dilemma, as the term indicates, the number of courses of action and decision complicate the selection since most are consistent with differing ethical values and obligations; and (3) harm dilemma is a difficult ethical situation where a course of action or decision would result to injury or harm (Defense Ethics Program, January 2002, pp. 18 - 19). 3. Drawing from Trevino’s (1986) Interactionist model of ethical decision-making, explain what individual and situational factors could influence your decision? Trevino’s interactionist model was described in Hotel Mule (2010) as postulating that “ethical decision-making within an organisation is based on the interaction of cognitions, individual moderators and situational moderators. Trevino’s model uses Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in the cognition stage in providing a basis from which to examine the individual and situational factors that make his approach unique” (Hotel Mule, 2010, par. 1). In this regard, using the original scenario that needs to determine one’s decision in the capacity of an AWWO, the individual factors that could influence one’s decision lies into the following: “ego strength, field dependence and locus of control, are suggested to influence the likelihood of a person to act on the cognitions regarding what is ethical or unethical” (Hotel Mule, 2010, par. 3). As explicitly defined, the explanation for the three individual factors are quoted herewith: Individuals who are high on ego strength are said to resist impulses and follow their intuitions regarding what is right or wrong they are more likely to act on what they think is right or wrong – than those who are low on this measure. Individuals deemed to be field dependent are those who more typically refer to the guidance of others in determining what is right or wrong. The opposite of this, field independent, includes individuals who function with more autonomy than their counterparts. Individuals who are at the conventional level of moral development, or lower, are said to rely on field independence in moderating the relationship between moral cognition and moral action. The last factor, locus of control, is a measure of the control that one exerts in his or her life. Externals are those who rely on other forces for guidance and are less likely to take personal responsibility for their actions; whereas internals believe that outcomes are a result of their own efforts or powers (Hotel Mule, 2010, p. 7). The above explanation reveals that when applied to the situation requiring the decision in the capacity of an AWWO, the individual factors of ego strength, field dependence and locus of control need to be closely analyzed. As AWWO, the ego strength appears to be high and therefore follows one’s intuitions and factual reasoning to determine if any course of action (obey or disobey) would have to decide on whether the action is deemed to be right or wrong. As one has already analyzed in terms of legal and moral reasoning, the decision would be to disobey the Captain due to the inaccuracy of the report that he wants to be relayed – violating legal laws and proving to be detrimental to his future decisions on various ethical and military situations. On the other hand, his level of field dependency is fairly balanced, being in the middle position as an officer and at the same time, a subordinate to the Captain. In this regard, he could have the autonomy to decide on the most appropriate course of action as long as appropriate ethical principles justify the accuracy and appropriateness of his decisions. Likewise, as a subordinate, he could opt to seek higher independent authority would could be a mentor and guide to assist in his decision-making process with objectivity and responsibility. Finally, considering the locus of control as an individual factor, as an officer, the AWWO is expected to apply personal knowledge, values and beliefs in determining which option would be most beneficial in exemplifying professionalism in this field of endeavour. Under situational factors, the following elements or categories must be evaluated prior to decision-making: immediate job content, organizational culture and characteristics of the work (Hotel Mule, 2010, p. 8). The situational factors of the scenario that could influence the AWWO’s decision lie primarily on the professionalism expected to be adhered to the responsibilities of his job, characteristics of his work and the culture of the organization that defines making decisions subject to the principles, obligations and type of ethical dilemma contained under the DEP. Being classified as an uncertainty dilemma with only two options: to obey or to disobey, the AWWO could justify the course of action using the guiding principles of military professionalism and other guiding regulations contained under the DEP. 4. List four legitimate potential avenues of military protest that are available to you according to Gabriel (2007), if you decide that you are not obligated to obey this order. Describe which one you would use to justify your decision to disobey the Captain. The four legitimate potential avenues of military protest that are available in the capacity of the AWWO according to Gabriel (2007) as presented in Lesson 11 are as follows: (1) resignation; (2) request to be relieved from command; (3) appeal to higher authority or command; and (4) refuse the order (Gabriel, 2007; cited in Lesson 11, p.2/2). Using the abovementioned potential avenues to disobey the Captain, one would use appealing the situation to higher authority and refusing the order, at the same time. Resignation or early retirement is not an option because there is a commitment and genuine desire to serve. Further, as revealed, this option is usually resorted to by senior officers who have had the opportunity to be of service to the country and to the public for a considerable length in time. Option two: requesting to be relieved from the command, is likewise, not an option because the refusing to obey has appropriate legal and moral justifications grounded on solemn affirmation and the guiding principles, obligations stated in the DEP. In this regard, option four could easily be chosen as the decision but at the same time, there is a need to present the matter to a higher authority to reveal the nature and lack of professionalism exemplified by the Captain. By resorting to these two courses of action, appropriate sanctions or measures could be applied to the Captain by a higher authority and would thereby justify refusing the order under both legal and moral grounds. Conclusion The case scenario aimed to determine the level of comprehension and competencies in applying appropriate ethical theories on the issue of military professionalism. By initially evaluating the best option using legal and moral grounds, the AWWO’s most appropriate decision is to disobey the Captain’s order given the unlawfulness of the order. If one would simply obey it, there would be tendencies of manifesting future unprofessionalism through giving unlawful orders which would be expected to be obeyed despite the cost. Through the use of the Statement of Defence Ethics in the Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics (2002), ethical considerations in terms of ethical principles, ethical obligations, and types of ethical dilemma were proffered. Likewise, drawing from Trevino’s (1986) Interactionist model of ethical decision-making, individual and situational factors deemed to influence the decision were identified, presented and expounded. Finally, by determining the list of four legitimate potential avenues of military protest that are available according to Gabriel (2007), one’s decision to disobey using appealing to higher authority and refusal to obey were justified to be the most appropriate courses of action. Military professionalism has been discussed and understood through the case scenario and given the diverse theoretical and practical applications of guiding principles of ethics and moral codes of conduct. As emphasized, the unique and distinct role accorded to military professionals distinguishes them from other professionals in terms of putting service before self and in serving with duty and honour. References Defense Ethics Program. (January 2002). Fundamentals of Canadian Defense Ethics. Canada: National Defence. Defense Ethics Program. (2005). Introduction to Defense Ethics: Student Manual. National Defense. Gabriel, R. (2007). The warrior's way:A treatise on military ethics. Kingston: Canadian Defense Academy. Hotel Mule. (2010, July 29). Models and Methods of Moral Reasoning. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.hotelmule.com/management/html/69/n-3069-7.html PSE 402. (2010). Leadership and Ethics - Module 3: Professonalism; Lesson 11 - Obligations of the Military Proffesional. Royal Military College of Canada. PSE402. (2010). Leadership and Ethics - Module 3: Professionalism: Lesson 10 Military Professionalism. Royal Military College of Canada. Read More