Ethical Decision-Making

ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

TASK: Employ the Triadic Model of Ethics and the Army Four-Step Decision-making Process to reach informed, ethically mature decisions.

CONDITIONS: Given a classroom setting with a lecture, discussion, and group exercise using overheads and handouts.

STANDARDS: Each soldier will be able to employ the Triadic Model of Ethics and the Army Four-Step Decision-making Process to an intricate, ethically questionable scenario and explain the basis for his conclusions..

I. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ETHICS?

A. ta etheka, the accepted, accustomed, appropriate (according to whom?)

B. The question of ethics involves us in questions about absolutes, the “why” of moral behavior. If there is no God, then everything is allowed. Jean Paul Sartre. Or, God is dead, so let us build morality without him, Friedrich Nietzsche. (Will to Power)

C. The attempt to do ethics without admitting ultimate right and wrong is misguided and inconsistent. THOUGHT: How can you do ethics without this dimension of transcendence (God)

D. Ethics deals with three perspectives:

SITUATION 1. What is the situation that requires my response? What is the problem of

dilemma?

NORM 2. What is right? For the theist, What does God have to say about right and

wrong?

SELF 3. What is my attitude toward the problem? How do I relate to the situation

and the norm?

II. ETHICAL SYSTEMS: Each is based on an exaggeration of one of the three perspectives.

A. Consequential/Teleological: assumes that the end justifies the means, or that the SITUATION outcome of actions/behavior makes that action right.

REASON *PROBLEM: often elevates one absolute (usually love) above al others; lacks subtlety and flexibility

B. Authoritative/Deontological: assumes there is an authoritative moral source to NORM govern behavior: God, Natural Law, Reason, etc.

WILL *PROBLEM: Often deals with prima facie duties (surface appearances;

can fail to consider mitigating circumstances)

C. Existential: assumes there is no objective source for moral propriety, but each is SELF responsible for the authenticity of his/her actions.

EMOTION *PROBLEM: Fails to provide basis for distinguishing moral from immoral behavior.

KEY THOUGHT: ALL NON THEISTIC SYSTEMS FAIL TO INTEGRATE ALL THREE.

1. The Situation includes absolutes (God’s Word) and the self. It is impossible to understand the situation until you view it in light of Scripture and your own responsibility to act.

2. The Norm must be applied to the situation by the self or else it remains abstract, It must be concretized in a situation by an actor.

3. The Self cannot be understood rightly until seen in the context of its situation (God’s creature within his providential care), and under his norms (God’s revealed will- Word).

III. VALUES AND ETHICS: Values that impact your decision-making process.

A. LEGAL/REGULATORY STATUTES: ARs, municipal, state, federal laws

B. IDEAL ARMY VALUES: FM 22-100

C. ACTUAL ARMY VALUES: real world, current issues, hot buttons

D. PERSONAL VALUES: individually formed, appropriated

E. INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES: unit, CDR’s policies, IG, JAG, EO, EEO

F. RELIGIOUS VALUES: informed by faith perspective (or, its antithesis)

IV. ETHICAL GRID: DECISION-MAKING PROCESS (FM 22-100)

A. INTERPRET THE SITUATION: What is the ethical dilemma?

B. ANALYZE ALL THE FACTORS AND FORCES that relate to the dilemma.

C. CHOOSE THE COURSE OF ACTION you believe will best serve the nation.

D. IMPLEMENT THE COURSE OF ACTION you have chosen.

LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS

Scenario One

The following is from the book, Platoon Leader, by James R. McDonough:

“The morning of the third day I returned to my platoon at Truong Lam. One man had been lost to a booby trap, his leg severed at the thigh. The suspected Viet Cong family was still there because the weather hadn’t broken long enough to warrant a helicopter to come in and pick them up. But there was something different about them. A look of hatred had hardened among the adults- even the children had acquired it. But the difference was most noticeable in the young woman. Gone was her look of fierce pride. She appeared sullen, sunken, defeated.

I couldn’t be sure what had happened or even if my perceptions were correct. A passing glance between the young mother and the platoon sergeant aroused my suspicion that he had violate her in some fashion during my absence. Whether my suspicions were true or not, I will never know. But I did know that I would never be able to trust the sergeant again.

Later that day I evacuated the family. I also arranged the transfer of the platoon sergeant. Hernandez had served the platoon well and had been a stabilizing influence on my own more aggressive tactics. But I no longer trusted him, so it was time for him to go.” p. 124.

ANALYZE THE PLATOON LEADER’S ACTIONS ACCORDING TO THE TRIADIC SYSTEM OF ETHICS. Take 15 minutes and discuss the following questions. Appoint a spokesman to brief your conclusions.

SITUATION: What is the situation that requires my response (or, what is the dilemma)?

NORM: What is the right thing to do? Where is the source of this value?

SELF: What is my attitude toward the problem? How do I relate to this situation and the norm? How must I respond?

Be prepared to justify the platoon leader’s actions, or recommend a better course of action he could have taken.

LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS

Scenario One

The following is from the book, Platoon Leader, by James R. McDonough:

Something was wrong with the enemy bodies. Two had been killed cleanly in the brief firefight by wicked wounds that quickly destroyed vital organs. But two bore mysterious wounds- a neat hole in the middle of the forehead, a square of skin hanging open like a trapdoor in the front, a gaping hole like an exploded watermelon in the back; lesser wounds, disabling but not killing, appeared elsewhere on the bodies. Something was wrong. I looked closer: powder burns on the forehead indicated the killing weapon had been fired at point-blank range. The caliber was large, not an M-16 rifle. It was a .45 caliber pistol that had done it. Only one man carried a .45 on that operation: the medic. It was a medic’s traditional weapon, ostensibly for self-defense.

Shives, the only “noncombatant” in the platoon was my suspect. He was the one who patched up the gore. He was the one who sat with his dying buddies, trying to stem the flow of blood or reattach a leg. He heard their last words, tried to stifle their screams. Perhaps it had been too much for him. I called him over to talk.

“How many enemy wounded are there, Doc?”

“Two, sir!” Shives answered.

“What about the dead, Shives? Was there any chance of saving them?”

“No sir. All were killed outright. Dead by the time I got to them.”

I studied his eyes. What secrets were locked behind them?

“Well, that’s four less VC I guess,” I said. “Poor bastards, hope it was quick.”

“I hope it hurt,” he rejoined.