Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Military ethics during war
Military ethics during war
Military Ethics and the Military Decision Making Process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Military ethics during war
There is an old saying, "All is fair in love and war." This saying is around because during times of war, countries are more concerned with being victorious than with being moral in their actions. If a country were to attempt to be moral, they may lose to a country that will stop at nothing to win. On the personal level of the soldiers, morals are even more difficult to possess. A soldier not only lacks the ability to make major decisions about the war, but he also is unable to make his own decisions about what to do. It is because of this that in a properly structured military one cannot keep their own personal morals.
It is important to stress the meaning of the word "can" and "can not" in this essay. When it is said one can not keep their morals, it does not mean that he or she can not try. In the story "Guest of the Nation" by Frank O'Connor, a man was asked if he would do what he thought was right knowing he would be shot He replied that he would even if it meant being shot twenty times over. Yes, this means that he could attempt to keep his own personal morals but would die for doing so. Because of this it is understood that one could always try to keep their morals, but in a time of war keeping ones personal morals while continuing to fight in the war is impossible.
In "The Guest of the Nation" the men doing the killings felt that it was their duty and that their own personal morals did not matter. This concept of duty comes up often in two situations. The first is like is shown in this story. A person is posed with a moral decision in which what they feel is the right thing to do can not be done because of what needs to be done. Doing what needs to be done is considered to be duty. The second situation is when the ri...
... middle of paper ...
...apons, a person may feel that they chemical weapons are immoral.
In times of war morals are put the test not only on personal levels, but for countries as a whole. Decisions have to be made that may go against what an individual believes for the better of a country as a whole. Although soldiers may believe one way, they will not be able to express that belief unless it coincides with the belief of their country. All decisions will be made without consent of the soldiers, and regardless of what the solders personally believe, the missions will be carried out and the morals of individuals will be disregarded. Because of this and the desire to win at all cost, it is impossible for individuals to maintain both an active part in a war, and their own individual morals.
I acknowledge that I have used a revision/proofreading site to check this document before submission.
In the novel All quiet on the western front by Erich Maria Remarque one of the major themes he illustrates is the effects of war on a soldier 's humanity. Paul the protagonist is a German soldier who is forced into war with his comrades that go through dehumanizing violence. War is a very horrid situation that causes soldiers like Paul to lose their innocence by stripping them from happiness and joy in life. The symbols Remarque uses to enhance this theme is Paul 's books and the potato pancakes to depict the great scar war has seared on him taking all his connections to life. Through these symbols they deepen the theme by visually depicting war’s impact on Paul. Paul’s books represent the shadow war that is casted upon Paul and his loss of innocence. This symbol helps the theme by depicting how the war locked his heart to old values by taking his innocence. The last symbol that helps the theme are the potato pancakes. The potato pancakes symbolize love and sacrifice by Paul’s mother that reveal Paul emotional state damaged by the war with his lack of happiness and gratitude.
The Army currently has an ethical code ebodied in the Army Values, which provides guidance to the individual and the organization. These values are universal across the Army regardless of an individual’s personal background or religious morals. Professional Military Education schools teach the Army Ethic and evaluation reports for leaders affirm this ethic. The Army punishes individuals, especially leaders, who violate this code. The Army administratively punishes Soldiers who do not adhere to this code, and the severity of punishment increases with rank. One recent and highly visible example of this is former General Petraeus’s adultery and the subsequent professional sanctions he experienced. The Army gr...
First, The May Act signed by Roosevelt allowed the government to create “moral zones” for military personal.[1] This intrigues me because it cites military personnel as worthy of protection from the state, while other groups were left vulnerable to violence. Furthermore, the military has a monopoly on violence and force. They can legally attack another nation and their attack will be seen as justified. Yet, their soldiers have to be morally policed due to their immature or irresponsible behavior. Groups that are expected to protect citizens cannot police
the change in moral of the volunteers and the civilians under pressure after the Tet
After the declaration of war by older men, many schools across the world helped further the encouragement of younger generations participating in war through the use of schoolmasters and other students without revealing the dangers war can have on the soldiers physically and mentally. In Paul’s life, his school master Kantorek, glorified the war by withholding war realities by perching to his students that fighting for their country would result in heroism. This inspired Paul and many of his classmates to enlist, but still some were not convinced by Kantorek’s rhetoric. In fear of being ostracized, many obliged to participate in the war. Of course, these glorification where shattered by realty as soon as Paul and classmates ...
part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater
The current military system is based on obedience and respect for authority. From entering boot camp where personnel are mentally reconditioned to be a soldier, airman, or sailor in the United States Armed Forces, they’re taught that following orders comes before personal feelings or beliefs. Following orders is paramount to accomplishing a mission and ensuring that the job is done correctly, and that what you think or feel isn’t worth shari...
The Milagro Beanfield War, written by John Nichols, demonstrates several themes on life. They range from the interactions of the rich and the poor to the hot arid farming climate in New Mexico. All of which have significant importances in this famous novel. Perhaps the most important theme that is represented in this novel is the idea that people should do what is wright no matter the consequences. People are constantly faced with the choice of right and wrong. What they choose not only effects themselves, but everyone else involved. That is why being true to yourself is being true to everyone. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? Yet if I am for myself only, what am I?"(p. 1). This theme carries the plot throughout the book.
Cultures vary depending on the extent to which they build virtues based on all the five foundations. Therefore, the liberals who only rely on the two foundations, find it hard to comprehend the moral motivations of the conservatives and therefore the culture of war. To them, the two foundations are all they require to make sound moral judge...
In “Moral Logic of Survival Guilt” there are soldiers that would return home from war with guilt. The guilt they had was with their team they would go to war an when a soldier dies he would take it out on himself. Soldiers can only go beyond their moral actions. Not everyone can save lives and if you can't don’t feel guilty or held accountable for not being able to save that
In order for a military to execute its function, every platform of the chain of command must expect and demand obedience to commands (Montrose, 2013), because if this does not happen many lives can be at stake. A simply failure to comply with the orders given can not only jeopardize the lives of the soldiers, it can compromise the safety of all military personnel involved, even in the matter of national security. Utilitarianism has a core theory that some actions may be considered right or wrong relying on the effects of the outcomes. This theory is mostly what could be applied this situation of the detainees in the military prisons. During this time, national security was weak, the country was being attacked and threatened, and thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives. The military could was only looking out for the interest of the country and many interrogation techniques were used to get information that could lead the capture of Al-Qaeda leaders. Soldiers are sent to warzones without the ability to deny their own obligation to war, just because they believe it to be morally wrong. They are sent and receive orders under the assumption the government has all the information needed to make the best decision for the country. According to the periodical, Unjust War and a Soldier’s Moral Dilemma, individual soldiers who have
The Politician and the soldier have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. The longer the war persists, the more likely he will not go home alive.
	The pounding of shells, the mines, the death traps, the massive, blind destruction, the acrid stench of rotting flesh, the communal graves, the charred bodies, and the fear. These are the images of war. War has changed over the centuries from battles of legions of ironclad soldiers enveloped in glimmering armor fighting for what they believe to senseless acts of guerrilla warfare against those too coward to be draft-dodgers. Those who were there, who experienced the terror first hand were deeply effected and changed forever. In their retinas, images of blood and gore are burned for the rest of their life.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).
"The core of a soldier is moral discipline. It is intertwined with the discipline of physical and mental achievement. Total discipline overcomes adversity, and physical stamina draws on an inner strength that says drive on." - Former Sergeant Major of the Army William G. Bainbridge