Following Military Orders that May be Unethical - Research Paper Example

? Following Military Orders That May Be Unethical: and number: submitted: The military, given the sensitivity of their role in society, maintain remarkable standards of obedience. It is these standards that make these forces effective and reliable (Mason, 2011). While this efficiency protects the nation from war and protects other nations from anarchy, there is a bottom line that seems to take effect only after the wars cease. This is the ethical nature of the soldiers’ actions and omissions in regard to obeying orders. There are many legal and social standards through which an action is ethical, but these standards do not solve the contradiction that comes with the relativity in situations, individuals and societies. While soldiers pledge to obey their superior’s orders they do so in view of the uniform code of military justice and the constitution. As such, soldiers “should not” obey illegal commands. Establishing the legality or illegality of a command has over the years has raised controversial ethical issues. Under the UCMJ, articles 90 to 92 hold that willful or un-willful disobedience of lawful orders from a senior officer is a criminal offence (Mason, 2011). During war, article 90 further stipulates that such an action is punishable by death (Mason, 2011). Unlawful orders are those that are repugnant to the Constitution seeing as the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution derives form societal ethics and religious doctrines. However, the constitution does not take into account all societal ethics and religious standings of a people (Mason, 2011). There are many examples of illegal or potentially unethical orders issued every day in the army and other military organizations. This paper examines two accounts of death orders. The first example is that of William Calley 1968 during the Vietnam War (Thomas, 2012). The then Second Lieutenant claimed to have received orders from his superior to open fire and subsequently kill civilians. He then passed these orders to his juniors who, like him opened fire on innocent, unarmed civilians in the absence of duress (enemy fire) (Thomas, 2012). In 1971, William received a life sentence with the charge of premeditated murder. The aftermath of the sentence aside, Lieutenant William was guilty of murder while following the orders of a superior (Thomas, 2012). With the rise of terrorism threats cases of inhumane, unconstitutional mistreatment of prisoners is on the rise. A second example is an incident that occurred in the year 2004 during America’s invasion of Iraq. The 343rd Quartermaster Company on 13th October refused to go on a mission as ordered by their superiors (Mason, 2011). The unit cited unsafe and insufficient equipment as their reason to disobey orders claiming that the order was a suicide mission. The consequences of their actions have negative far reaching effects on their careers. These consequences include detainment, dishonorable discharge and forfeit of pay (Mason, 2011). In 1986, the U.S army listed some values an organization should have considered to form the foundation on which ethics stems from. These values included integrity, loyalty, selflessness and duty (Mason, 2011). For the individual, the army listed courage, commitment, candor and competence. This proclamation spells out two things. The first is that the superior officer (representative of the organization) should give due consideration to ethical matters while giving orders. Secondly, the officer receiving the orders should follow them while maintaining an ethical approach. Military laws and courts hold military persons accountable if their actions are unlawful regardless of the situation (whether they were following orders from a superior or not) (Mason, 2011). There are various theories that one can apply to examine the above situations. These theories include utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics relativism, emotivism and ethical egoism. John Stuart Mill advanced Consequentialism, a utilitarian theory. This theory holds that the consequences of an action or omission determine their ethical value. Therefore, actions that yield the best consequences are right and thereby ethical. Consequentialism further has two fronts by which an individual can examine an action. The first one is Rule consequentialism that holds that individuals rely on moral rules society sets to determine the goodness and badness of an action. Secondly, Act consequentialism, on the other hand, provides for an analysis of actions as individual entities (Shafer-Landau, 2012). With each new circumstance, different actions occur resulting in different consequences, therefore, ethical states change. The consequences of Lieutenant William’s actions were the death of innocent civilians and the tainting of the U.S Army name. As such, his actions were not beneficial to him or the U.S army; they were unethical. Refusing to go on the mission saved the lives of the soldiers; hence it is ethical. However, refusing to obey orders of their superiors will not yield the right result according to rule consequentialism hence the soldiers’ actions aside from being illegal are unethical (Mason, 2011). The Deontological theory by Emmanuel Kant also holds the same view as Rule consequentalism. However, this theory holds that actions construed on rational, moral rules are right. Rational is the ability of a decision, act or moral rule to apply to similar but not necessarily identical situations (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Ordinarily, breaking laws and the orders of a superior is not morally permissible and the consequences cannot, therefore, be virtuous. However, the rationality behind the actions of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, is without a doubt, logical thereby constituting an ethical action. However, the Vietnam killings were an order from a senior officer, but these orders were irrational, therefore, immoral and unethical (Thomas, 2012). From the two aforementioned theories, duty and consequences should guide the actions of individuals. Ethical dilemmas also face personnel in private military Companies. In the year 2005 a whistleblower, Ben Johnston, made incriminating allegations against the company’s employees. These allegations included inhumane treatment of natives in Columbia and Bosnia that included burning of food crops and animals. While the company had a duty to the government to crush drug curtails, they had a moral obligation to the inhabitants not to harm them and destroy their livelihood. While following orders, the officers defied Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative principle; creating a deontological dilemma (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Meanwhile, virtue ethics theory provides for the analysis of an action or omission in view of the individual’s character stemming from his past life. The rightness of an action in this case is secondary to the righteousness of the individual performing the action (MacKinnon, 2010). In view of statements made by second parties in regard to Lieutenant William’s character reveal that he had questionable morals and was incompetent as a soldier. His own subordinates did not like him. These revelations show that, before his horrid actions, William had done other questionable things; therefore, his actions in Vietnam were unethical (Thomas, 2012). On the other hand, the families of the officers in the 343rd Quartermaster Company report that those soldiers were loyal to their nation and their unit. Secondly they always followed orders. However, the situation they found themselves in was the one that caused them to act outside their obedient nature hence their actions were not unethical (MacKinnon, 2010). There are even cases where officers give vague commands such as “take charge of this situation” (Thomas, 2012). It is in such instances that ethical theories such as relativism, emotivism and ethical egoism come into play. The individual is at a crossroad as to what action best suits the situation. Ethical Relativism is an ethical approach that defines morality in view of individuals and society. This theory holds that there are no standards through which humans can establish what is ethical and what is not. However, there are different gauges depending on an individual (individual ethical relativism) and society (cultural relativism). The American culture of humanity and safeguarding human rights spells out the unethical nature of the Vietnam incident. However, the individual in question until recently saw his actions as right considering the orders from a senior officer (Mason, 2011). The theory of ethical Egoism has two fronts, psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism holds that human actions reflect their desire to meet their own selfish interests. Ethical Egoism, on the other hand, holds that human actions “ought” to reflect their personal interests as this is necessary and sufficient to the individual’s moral sanctity (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Psychological egoism is particularly relevant to the case of the 343rd Quartermaster Company. There is a degree of selfishness seen in the actions of these soldiers. First, other soldiers had performed the same tasks under the same condition and sometimes under worse conditions. Secondly, the supplies they were to transport were essential to other soldiers in another base. In view of ethical egoism, the soldiers did the right thing as they ought to protect their self interests. Ethical emotivism is the view that human actions reflect their attitudes and emotional leanings in view of a situation (Shafer-Landau, 2012). This theory does not recognize objective moral facts seeing as moral stands are mere reflections of an individual’s feelings. The Vietnam War was a time of despair for American soldiers. Beside the actions of Lieutenant William, there were other such actions done in anger and despair. Speculations are that the Vietnam killings constituted a suppressed act of revenge. The passion with which William held that his actions were right in view of following orders and performing his duty to his country against “the enemy” are a true act of emotivism (Thomas, 2012). Even if, the consequences of the actions of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were not death of innocent people, a defiant sense of emotivism is evident (Shafer-Landau, 2012). The virtues of a person, especially when under emotional and physical pressure vary in each situation. The same can be said about rules of morality. Humans will change societal rules making some legal and others illegal for their own benefit. These are stunts political and religious leaders upheld over millenniums, and it will not stop in the 21st century (Broad, 2000). Therefore, shortcoming aside, I support Act consequentialism theory. This is because situations and motives will always change requiring individuals to act different each time. While considering Act Consequentialism the individual will always remember to pick an action that yields the best, right result for the greater majority. In view of these, I hold that a soldier should have the intellectual capacity to estimate the results of their actions (MacKinnon, 2010). The senior officer should also estimate the consequences of their orders. A two party consideration will yield better results than when the junior officer deals with the burden of whether or not to follow an order. In the chain of command, one notices that it is easier to give a command than to execute the command. The burden is even heavier when the law permits an action that but goes against other individual and societal standards. An exemplary instance is mercy killing, and the case of the 343rd Quartermaster Company. One party wants to end life in a dignified way while the other wants to avoid futile death. I apply the same principle to military personnel who execute orders to torture (forcefully and inhumanly extract) information from persons suspected of being terrorists or having terrorist ties. Most people argue that these methods are unethical. In my opinion, however, the dilemma lies in whether the rights of an individual take precedence over the rights of a population (MacKinnon, 2010). It is safe to say that the law of the land does to some extent safe guard some individual and societal ethics (Broad, 2000). However, it is clear that the constitution is not enough. The legality of an action does not necessarily guarantee that it is ethical. This is because; some individual rights and actions considered humane are not part of the constitution or Acts of the United Nations. Some may argue that this is where ethical theories come in; to fill the void. However, from the above illustration, one can conclude that these theories are lacking in one way or the other (Broad, 200). In real life situations, people, consciously or subconsciously apply multiple ethical theories at one time to a single situation. This is not so much as to the inadequacy of the theory but to the sensitivity that pertains to the need to act ethically while expecting the same of others. After all, societal rules, which are in most cases fruits of ethics, lean towards harmonious coexistence. Nonetheless, the legal and societal standards including philosophical ethical theories through which actions are ethical or unethical do not address the various situations a soldier may find themselves in succinctly (Mason, 2011). References: Allison, W. T. (2012). My Lai: An American Atrocity in the Vietnam War. New York: JHU Press. Broad, C. (2000). Five Types of Ethical Theory, Volume 2. New York: Routledge. MacKinnon, B. (2010). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. New York: Cengage Learning. Mason, R. C. (2011). Military Justice: Courts-Martial, an Overview. New York: DIANE Publishing. Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More