by Michael C. Sevcik
Download The Full Article: Moral Intuition and the Professional Military Ethic
As our Army faces the professional ethics challenges of ten years at war, we would do well to realize how central emotion is to morality. We should shift our training, education and Army learning programs to focus mainly on developing men and women of character and integrity. Our Army should place less emphasis on the moral reasoning and ethical decision making processes when it comes to training in both the institutional school house and operational units. This quandary ethics approach not only falls short in providing a process that does not work when the bullets are flying but this thin slicing is a formula for postmodern relativism. When it comes to morality and ethics, the "how to" decision-making process is never as important as what our Soldier's think morally, demonstrate in character and live by the example of uncompromising integrity. Three thousand years ago, Aristotle focused on the 'character" of the individual. His focus regarding Stoic moral philosophy and approach to ethics was to build character in men based on courage, justice, temperance and wisdom. Only after we develop men and women of character, can we hope to get our Soldier's to the proper "intuitive" moral response to the tough ethical challenges they face in both combat and garrison operations. With the understanding of how central the role of emotions is to morality, our commanders and leaders will able to better train their Soldiers and importantly, establish a command climate based on character, values and honor.
When it comes to morality and character, the human species has changed little during the past three millennia. Our approach as a professional organization ought to turn back from the quandaries of case studies and ethical decision making processes which lead moral relativism. Aristotle had it right -- let's get after the inculcation of morality, character and values in our Soldiers.
Download The Full Article: Moral Intuition and the Professional Military Ethic
COL. (Ret.) Michael C. Sevcik is an instructor at the School for Command Preparation, US Army Command & General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He served for 32 years as a Soldier, retiring in 2007.
About the Author(s)
Comments
I left the Army an entirely different person from when I entered. I attribute this to the lessons of my ethics professor in military school and the examples set by two of my Company Commanders, two of my platoon sergeants, and one of my First Sergeants. Ethics can be taught, but that is not enough. Ethics can be trained, but that is not enough. To develop ethical Soldiers, those Soldiers need a foundation of understanding of how we make ethical decisions and then training from leaders who have their respect to ensure they know how to make ethical decisions.
Mike,
Great thinkpiece and you are highlighting a vulnerability in how we train and educate!
I also think the social group is a very powerful level for consideration -- "why they fight" (and do what ever else they do). The institutional context is also vitally important -- that is (I speculate), is there an analogous "collective emotion" (and later the "coolective mind") involved?
As a student of evolutionary behavior including some of the more recent studies on altruism and social norms by people like Joseph Henrick (1) and Sam Bowles (2) as well as some recent coursework in neurobiology, I think there is a basic, categorical problem with applying intuitive ethics. That basic problem is social and cultural context.
Like other parts of our brain, our limbic system is a mix of instinctual "structural" connections and learned or imprinted information. This is why it's uncommon to find someone with no fear of snakes, but--for some people--a person with a shade of red hair like a childhood rival of their's creates an immediate, visceral response. The combination takes advantage of our instinctual and imprinted responses to create a "heuristic" or "short cut" for handling many situations.
It's the imprinted part that causes a contextual problem. Because what we are exposed to as children and--usually--adults is controlled to a degree, our "intuition" depends greatly on the social, cultural, and environmental conditions we have experienced. For most of us--especially those in America--the range of experiences is particularly restricted in the degree of real-world violence and under-controlled environment.
Consider, for example, the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One common factor for most people involved was an immediate confusion of what to do because of a lack of experience in such a situation. For some, an appeal to authority for guidance and support was their response. For others, including some of the law enforcement personnel--people we as a society often see as first line arbiters of ethical decision-making--the actions taken were explicitly unethical <i>although arguably intuitive!</i>.
They were simply outside the context of their experience.
As most of the actions of the US military beyond training and administration are expected to be beyond the areas of control of our (or similar) societies, the assumption is that the context of those ethical decisions may be as well. While the idea of an intuitive, "protective" ethical response sounds good, the fact is our intuition can easily make the wrong decisions when put in the wrong situation.
Another factor is the types of intuitive response. Recent experiments with nasally administered oxytocin demonstrate the limbic system makes distinctions between decisions involving people (a social/personal context) and decisions that don't directly involve people (including economic decisions). The implication is--especially in a military context--what your intuition suggests may depend on the degree of personal attachment or identification involved.
Because of this, if the actions of the decision maker is subject to ethical standards and consequences set by someone above them, relying on intuition can be quite dangerous if the authority over the decision maker isn't of like experience. Instead, rationally evaluating the potential courses of action based on the standards provided from above acts to protect the decision-maker as well as those acting on those decisions from post-action judgment.
The rational assessment additionally allows for the application of knowledge beyond the range of individual experience--something that may benefit peace-time soldiers on the entry of a war.
Just two cents from a novice student of behavior and military history...
<hr>
(1) - http://www.psych.ubc.ca/faculty/profile/index.psy?fullname=Henrich,%20J…
This brings to mind the mandatory "character guidance" classes I mostly slept through as a junior enlisted man more than 40 years ago. Curiously, officers and NCOs didn't seem to need these classes, which I soon concluded were merely vehicles to keep the chaplains occupied. Inevitably, there was a lot of God-talk in the classes, certainly because of the age-old theory that organized religion has somehow broken the code when it comes to ethics and morals. I was soon promoted out of having to attend these classes and, in looking back, I don't think they did much for the development of my character, such as it is.
As a saying that I hadn't yet heard in the old days has it, "you can't legislate morality." I've learned that's true, which means those classes were a waste of the soldier's time. Character was already formed; what was far more important was learning the laws of warfare.
When it comes to the Ralph Peters hypothetical, anyone who's been in combat knows that's a situation and terrain issue. No training will ever prepare one to make the decision. Values and beliefs formed at the age of five will turn out to be more influential than any class presented by a well-meaning sergeant.
I agree with the author's premise. Rather than wasting the soldier's valuable time by making him listen to sermons, the military should place far more emphasis on recruiting and promoting individuals who don't need to be preached at. You don't want Abu Ghraibs? Recruit and promote the right people. Get rid of those who might like doing those things. And face it: the kinds of people who might misbehave usually show themselves before it happens. Every police department knows this. The military has to be more sensitive to indicators of misconduct and has to be more willing to deal with them.
Of course, the essence of Stoicism was the suppression of the emotional life. As St, Augustine writes in "Teh City of God"
"We need not at present give a careful and copious exposition of the doctrine of Scripture, the sum of Christian knowledge, regarding these passions. It subjects the mind itself to God, that He may rule and aid it, and the passions, again, to the mind, to moderate and bridle them, and turn them to righteous uses. In our ethics, we do not so much inquire whether a pious soul is angry, as why he is angry; not whether he is sad, but what is the cause of his sadness; not whether he fears, but what he fears. For I am not aware that any right thinking person would find fault with anger at a wrongdoer which seeks his amendment, or with sadness which intends relief to the suffering, or with fear lest one in danger be destroyed. The Stoics, indeed, are accustomed to condemn compassion. But how much more honorable had it been in that Stoic we have been telling of, had he been disturbed by compassion prompting him to relieve a fellow-creature, than to be disturbed by the fear of shipwreck! Far better and more humane, and more consonant with pious sentiments, are the words of Cicero in praise of Caesar, when he says, "Among your virtues none is more admirable and agreeable than your compassion."
The benefit of strong character development on the decision-making process is clear, particularly on those decisions made under pressure. What is less clear to me is how such character development is to be fostered within the military. What mechanisms will be utilized? I am eager to know more.
I can still hear my piano teacher reminding me that "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." My sports coaches put me through my paces doing drills and visualizations. While those simulations made me a better pianist and athlete, one could argue that they did not make me a better person. But, on second glance, maybe they did. I certainly learned tenacity, patience and discipline.
Clearly, character is not so innate as to be immutable. Aristotle recognized that we become better as we do better, so to speak:
"Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." -- Aristotle