Running head: UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

Unethical Orders in the Military Name Professor Course Date

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

Introduction Ethical theories have been applied globally, and in different perspectives as mirrors for analyzing potential knowledge and ethical decision making. Classical theories of ethics provide the basis for defending, systematizing and recommending ideas, concepts and notions of moral behavior. Classical ethics falls under the normative class of ethics. Ethics can be divided into Meta, applied or normative ethics. Normative ethics concerns the practical meaning and determination of moral courses of action. Normative ethics concerns the moral appropriateness of a course of action (Arrigo, 2006). It presents classical theory as an overarching ethical principle that could be applied in solving moral ethical issues. In this case, classical ethics will be used in analyzing unethical orders in the military. This means that different perspectives of moral issues will be discussed through the introduction of relativism, emotive and ethical egoism. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism favors a course of action that facilitates happiness. It can be considered as a form of consequential processes. According to this principle of classical ethical theory, utilitarianism refers to the moral value of an action though the determination of the resultant outcomes of the action. However, considerations should be placed on actual consequences, intended consequences and foreseen consequence. A classical study of this principle can be seen in the orders the military gives out or obeys (Arrigo, 2006). Utilitarianism principles have characteristics of reductionist and quantitative approaches to ethical issues, and it can be seen as a form of naturalism. Utilitarianism can be distinguished from deontological principles because deontology does not regard consequences as a determinant to moral value. Utilitarianism can

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

also be distinguished from virtue ethics because virtue ethics emphasis on habits and acts that lead to happiness. A leading unethical order in the military, in my opinion, is the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima using atomic bombs. The American military gave out an order for dropping two atomic bombs over the densely populated cities in Japan. This bombing led to the death of thousands of Japanese civilians and the deformations in future generations. In fact, the nation has to cope with some of the effects of the bombing in present day. For instance, the nations agricultural potentials were destroyed by the bombing. Utilitarianism emphasis on actions that lead to happiness; hence, some will argue that the dropping of the bombs in Japan led to the end of the war (Hu, 2009). Thus, this means that the application of absolute utilitarianism would favor the use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese. Deontological Ethics Deontological ethics emphasizes on arguments or positions that evaluate the ethics of an action on the basis of the adherence of actions to rules. This can be seen as an obligation to the obedience of rules that bind an individual to duty. Deontological issues exist in the military on a daily basis. The military issues and follows orders that usually break the rule of duty and obligation. The principles of permissible harm under deontological ethics derive constraints that may cohere with considered case judgments, while they rely on categorical imperatives. According to these principles, harm aimed at saving many is acceptable because it facilitates the safety of the greater population (Miller, 2010). This principle can be used to address peoples notions that judge based on intuitions. This principle expresses constrains that indicate to people time to act with an aim of acceptable outcomes.

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

After the 2001 terrorist attacks on American soils, the military formulated tough measures that would be used, on suspected terrorists, to obtain information. These interventions can be viewed as torture, in the absence of clear ethical principles for evaluating the militarys actions. The military will argue that the use of torture on terrorists could thwart terrorists attacks, and save thousands of civilian lives. They will also argue that the torture of suspected terrorists could save a nation democratic process and civil liberties. However, the application of deontological principles on the programs by the military could eliminate or disapprove most of the illegal, covert programs by the military. In 2004, it was revealed that the military sexually tortured terrorist suspects in a prison in Abu Gharib (Perry, 2006). Such revelations show that though the military intend to obtain information, their actions do not fall within their legal obligations and duties. Furthermore, such instances may dampen public enthusiasm because of the intrinsic tendencies of the public to apply deontological principles in evaluating actions. Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics illustrate the characters of an ethical agent as a force for moral behavior. This does not emphasis on rules or consequences. Virtue ethics can be applied in achieving human success, happiness or a feeling of blessedness. It refers a state of objectiveness rather that subjectivity. Virtue ethics characterizes well lived life, and the achievement of the goals of life. Virtue ethics emphasizes on the practicing of human quality (Powers, 2012). Virtue ethics can be categorized as intellectual or moral principles of ethics, which comprise of intellectual virtues such as prudence, fortitude, justice, temperance, justice and wisdom. In analyzing unethical orders in the military, it is crucial to contrast the perspectives brought by principles of relativism, ethical egoism and emotive. Most military officers are torn

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

between obeying and disobeying military orders, which could be deemed as unethical. However, the oath that the military officers take forces them to obey all the military orders issued by their commanders. Disobeying or obeying the military orders depends on the orders issued. The military officer disobeys the order at his own risk (Powers, 2012). The disobedience of military orders by an officer is not taken lightly by his seniors. In addition, following unlawful orders could land a military officer into trouble, according to the perspectives of the courts, court martial or the senior officers. Ethical Issues in the Military The enlisting of an individual to the military is followed by the taking of an oath in which the individual vows to protect the nations constitution and population. This is required for all individuals joining the military, regardless of their position in the military. The military officer also vows to follow orders of the commanders, appointing office and the president. This is required because the effectiveness of a military officers and the required discipline is based on the compliance of diverse orders. New recruits are required to follow orders with immediate effect, without questions or elaborations. Military officers failing to follow or obey orders face immense punishment from the forces or the appointing office (Miller, 2010). In most of the militaries, it is considered an offence for a military officer to disobey orders willingly, which may be accompanied by death. For instance, the U.S constitution provides that during a war, an officer who willingly disobeys orders from his superior faces up to a death sentence. This constitutional requirement can be viewed as, motivators, for the military officers to follow orders from their superiors. However, does not apply because the article requires military officers to follow lawful orders. Therefore, it should be noted that military officers should have

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

information regarding lawful and unlawful orders that may be issued by their superiors. It is also crucial for the officer to comprehend that only the lawful orders need to be followed, and the other orders can be dismissed. Therefore, the officer can be advantaged incase he had an understanding of military requirements and orders to be followed. The officer should also be capable of determining the legality of the different orders, and he should be conversant with the constitutional requirements (Arrigo, 2006). It should be highlighted that unlawful orders should be dismissed or recorded and reported to higher authority. Any military officer who follows unlawful orders faces legal actions for the disobedience of the constitution. According to the military courts, military officers are held accountable for their actions though they followed orders from their superiors. This applies in case the order contravened constitutional requirements. Military officers have used the common, I was acting under superior order, in different conditions as a defense for legal actions. However, it is vital for military officers to note that the phrase cannot be used in case the officer disobeyed the law. During military engagement, military officers engage may in unethical practices such as the shooting of civilians, raping women, plundering, illegal trading and confiscation of personal property. For instance, in the Vietnam War, a military officer was found guilty of shooting and killing an old Vietnamese citizen. It is essential for the military to understand that, though they may be seeking protection and safety, or chasing a goal of military conquest civilians are not engaged in war. It is unethical for any military officer to open fire to any civilian group within the war zone. Instead, the military should seek to ensure the safety of the civilians regardless of their affiliation (Arrigo, 2006). During the court ruling that found the military officer guilty, it was observed that justifications cannot be formulated for actions pursuant to orders in case the

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

orders contravened constitutions or international agreements. Interestingly, the court acquitted the officer who issued the orders for insanity. In 1968, First Lieutenant Calley William was found guilty of premeditated murder. The officer was found responsible for the 1968 Lai massacre. The officer used the defensive mechanism of transferring the blame to his seniors. However, the court rejected such notions and found the officer guilty. The public outcry saw the president grant Calley clemency. In 2004, the U.S military opened an inquiry for its members suspected to have mistreated prisoners and detainees in Iraq. Most of the officer indicated that the unethical orders were received from the intelligence wing of the military. However, the inquiry dismissed their argument because mistreatment of prisoners appears as an offence in the codes of military justice and international law. Most military forces have provisions that hold their officers responsible and accountable for their actions (Miller, 2010). This applies during their course of duty and execution of official duty. The law does not provide instances for the obedience of orders that could be considered as illegal. Interestingly, a military officer cannot decide the legality of an order because this duty lies with the courts and senior military officer. For instance, in 1995, the Spec-4 served in a peace making mission in Macedonia. During the peace keeping efforts, one of the members of the Spec-4 chose not to adhere to the orders that required members of the forces to don United Nations arm bands and helmets. The other members followed the orders, but Michael New did not comply. The court martial that was formed to hear and decide the issue found Michael New guilty of not following a legal order. Consequently, he was discharged from the forces. Another unethical order is one that has its basis on dangerous missions such as suicide missions. The

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

military can order an officer to carry out suicide missions. In 2004, the U.S made announcements that it wanted to investigate members of the Platoon Division based in South Carolina. The investigations were constituted to investigate the fact that the individuals had refused to transport materials to dangerous regions in Iraq. According to results from the investigations, the respondents indicated that they knew that the operation was dangerous. The members mentioned fear for not traveling to Iraq. Other ethical issues that arise in military operations include the tendency of the training towards effective killing. Nations have continuously increased their military forces with an aim of overpowering potential enemies and having enormous military manpower. However, it is also significant to note that this individual can turn against their citizens and nation and begin merciless executions. The issue of unethical orders in the military raises questions and issues on how well the issues are followed. Ethical considerations differ depending on an individuals understanding. While analyzing unethical orders in the military, it is crucial to understand that the military also has its own ethics. Military ethics are concepts applied in most of the military forces globally. These concepts have their basis on three fundamental conducts. These include the suitability of an individuals behavior in the profession, the achievement of standards in operations and assignments, and the conception of owing. Most importantly most militaries target the virtues of care, integrity and accountability. Utilitarianism in Addressing These Issues Utilitarianism has been selected as the classical ethical theory for addressing these issues. The theory has been selected because of its ability to foresee the penalties of unethical military actions. Utilitarianism emphasizes on the outcomes of happiness for any action undertaken by

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

individuals, in the military or other professions. From this case study, many unethical situations arise from military actions and assignments. Utilitarianism ethical arguments for unethical orders in the military include assessment of the orders and practices. Careful analysis of the commands and the effects of the unethical actions provide a basis for utilitarian actions. This is because utilitarianism seeks the best outcomes for the subjects. In most instances, military orders are given under time limited situations. This does not give the subject of the order enough time to ponder over the order and decide his course of action. As a result, the junior officer receives the order and acts on it immediately. Superiors issuing the order also find themselves in tricky situations because of the legality of the order in a time limited condition. There are instances in which officers cannot determine the legality of the orders. During these instances, the officer can apply utilitarianism theories to determine the appropriate course of action. The application of utilitarian theories ensures that the officer will be on the safe side as he implements the issued orders. The superiors can also apply the theory to determine the appropriateness of the order in a given situation. Cases arise in different sections of the military, regarding the execution or decline of execution of orders. In such instances, utilitarian theories can be applied during, a court martial or inquiries, to determine the responsibility of the officer. This is based on the fact that utilitarian theory can be used in decision making regarding court martial on an unethical order issued. In this case, utilitarian classical theory is applicable to facts settled for options that would result to greater involvement and immense benefits for the participants. In this instance, cases have been identified in which individuals were judged for not following orders. An application

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

10

of utilitarian theory in this instance would ensure that the courts make their ruling appropriately, and not dismiss individuals on baseless grounds. Contrasting the Response to Other Perspectives These responses can be compared and contrasted with the perspectives given by ethical egoism. According to ethical egoism, individuals are allowed to act according to the placement of their personal interests. The principle of ethical egoism does not have its basis on factual evidence or rational notions. Consequently, an individual cannot recommend ethical egoism because it does not consider the feeling of other people. It also overlooks the needs and situations of other people within the society. As highlighted earlier, personal ethical egoism contrast with utilitarian theories based on the benefits and choice of beneficiaries to the benefits. It is imperative to note that utilitarian theories advocate for happiness and benefits in society while ethical egoism advocate for individual benefits. Though military officers could apply ethical egoism with respect to the following orders, utilitarian theories ensure that the orders do not harm their subject. In addition, during the issuance and obedience of military orders, it is imperative for the military officer to forgo personal interest and ensure the safety and care of the civilians. The officer must consider the laws in application, ethical behaviors and acceptable social norms before undertaking any military order. Importantly, utilitarian theories also seek to protect the nation, people and constitution because of their emphasis on the welfare of the individuals.

UNETHICAL ORDERS IN THE MILITARY

11

References Arrigo, J. (2006). A Utilitarian Argument against Torture Interrogation Of Terrorists. Science And Ethics. Vol. 10, (3). Page 1-12. Hu, G. (2009). The Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki. Ethics In A Global Environment. Page 3-16. Miller, Y. (2010). Military Ethics. Legal Regulatory Compliance. Global Research on Military Issues. Page 3-7. Perry, D. (2006). Ethical Issues in Recent U.S Military Engagements. American Association Of University Of Women. Page 4-6. Powers, R. (2012). Military Orders-To Obey or Not To Obey? U.S Military. The New York Times. Page 1-2.