[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The chapter oncourage in the same book follows Aristotle s account of courage quite closely and,in general, the chapter stresses the importance of virtue ethics for the militaryprofession.It is not all virtue ethics, however.The works of Lawrence Kohlberg andJohn Rawls are deemed important and useful, especially on the topic of moraldevelopment, and Military Ethics covers them quite extensively, yet at the sametime the book is realistic about both the level of moral development mostpersonnel are on, as well as the progress that can be made.Both Kohlberg and Rawls are adherents of rule-based ethics, the mainalternative to virtue ethics, inspired by the works of Immanuel Kant, and do notsee much of a role for traits of character.Rule-based ethics stress the importanceof universal, categorically binding moral norms.It asks us to follow these moralrules against our natural (selfish) inclinations, where virtue ethics call for thedevelopment of good inclinations: we are virtuous when doing the right thinggives us pleasure.The philosophy of autonomy is sometimes considered less aptfor the military because, with its emphasis on rules and duty, it supposedly doesnot invite the kind of supererogatory acts the military depends on.Rule-basedethics allegedly aims at no more than at the ethical minimum, whereas virtueethics asks for a lot more.However, although asking no one to go beyond the callof duty, this main alternative to virtue ethics does require quite a lot of militarymen and women: moral duties are to be followed, not because they are imposedfrom the outside and are backed by sanctions, but because they accept them bychoice, requiring quite an amount of altruism and an universalistic outlook.Despite the popularity of virtue ethics, this view still has its advocates: in arecent plea for educating military personnel to be morally autonomous, basedon the work of Kant, Susan Martinelli-Fernandez states that it is the mark ofa morally mature agent to conform to moral principles voluntarily and for theirown sake (Martinelli-Fernandez 2006, 55 6).Normative rules that are followed The Ethics Curriculum at the Netherlands Defence Academy, and Some Problems 125because of rewards and punishment will often not suffice, because rules are thennot followed when no one is around.Lawrence Kohlberg s influential model of moral development (Kohlberg 1981)is paradigmatic for this line of thought and widely used by military ethicists,including in Dutch curriculum.According to this three level (and six stage)model, people are egoistic and calculating at the pre-conventional level, the onething keeping them from misbehaving being their fear of punishment.Once atthe conventional level, they are also sensitive to peer pressure (at the first stage ofthis level) and the norms of society (at the second stage), and concerned abouttheir reputation.Adherence to universal principles is deemed the highest, post-conventional or principled level.Kohlberg (who, by the way, denounced virtueethics as a bag of virtues approach ) mentions Gandhi and Martin Luther Kingas examples of the post-conventional level.One military ethicist recently described Kohlberg s model, with its emphasison the morally autonomous individual, as troublesome in the military context(Toner 2000, 56 7).Inside the military, as is the case elsewhere, most individualsare stuck at the second, conventional level, but most soldiers perhaps functionoften at the first stage of this level, possibly more inclined to conform to thenorms of their peers than to the norms of society.This seems not to havediminished Kohlberg s popularity among military ethicists; the same authorwho called the Kohlberg model troublesome for the military maintains that themoral education in the armed forces should nonetheless aim at reaching a higher Kohlberg stage (cf Gerhard Kümmel: The soldier will have to develop & somesort of humanitarian cosmopolitanism that exists besides feelings of patriotism(Kümmel 2003, 432)).In line with both virtue ethics and rule-based ethics, the importance of rightintention is stressed on several occasions in the literature used at the NLDA: in thechapter on courage in the course book Armed Forces and Society students read thatmilitary personnel should study the writings of Martha Nussbaum and AmartyaSen in order to develop a more altruistic, universalistic outlook.Although thislatter remark is probably a bit too optimistic, the point that a moral act shouldcome from a right intention to deserve that predicate is probably something thatis elemental in most ethics education in the military, whether the emphasis is onvirtue ethics or rule-based ethics.The remainder of this article deals with the problems that follow from a policyof judging behaviour by intention.Two ProblemsAlthough in many ways different, the two dominant strands of thought in militaryethics, virtue ethics and rule-based ethics, both stress the importance of rightintention , implying that good conduct should not be a result of peer pressure,fear of punishment or concern for reputation, nor of a desire for praise, esteemor approbation.There are two possible problems here.First, this might set the bartoo high.The decision to join the military is, according to some, to a considerable 126 Ethics Education in the Militaryextent motivated by post-traditional reasons such as salary and the longing foradventure, and not by the wish to further morally worthy goals, for instancefreedom and democracy (see Janowitz 1960 and Cafario 2003).Similarly, in actualcombat, patriotism and abstract ideals do not seem to be the motivating factor(see Stouffer et al.1949 and Wong et al.2003).It is probably a bit too optimisticto think that the global village will be the kind of community that soldiers arewilling to run risks for.The second problem is that military men and women actually have little tosay about the causes they are fighting for.Even though Aristotle maintained, andmost contemporary ethicists maintain, that acts are only laudable insofar theyserve a morally just cause (see e.g.Toner 2000, 111 14), in general soldiers areinstruments of politics, and do not necessarily subscribe to the causes they arefighting for.In fact, they do not have a say in what these causes are, nor do theywant to have a say in such matters.In theory, it is and should be irrelevant to theprofessional soldier whether he is sent abroad to spread freedom and democracy,or for more base reasons such as oil or electoral success.On the other hand, [n]o political leader can send soldiers into battle, asking them to risk their lives andto kill other people, without assuring that their cause is just and that of theirenemies unjust. Modern princes work hard to satisfy their subjects of the justiceof their wars; they render reasons , though not always honest ones (Walzer1992, xi xii and 39).Clearly, there is a discrepancy here; what should motivate military menaccording to most military ethicists (from both the deontological and the virtueethic schools) i.e.working for morally just causes is not always the same aswhat really makes them tick, nor is it what should concern them according towhat is considered to be normal civil-military relations nowadays.In practice,armies have found a way to close this gap between theory and practice by usingsocial cohesion and peer pressure as motivators (see also Osiel 1999, 212 13),thus making irrelevant the fact that abstract causes do little to motivate or arenot of the soldier s own choosing [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.The chapter oncourage in the same book follows Aristotle s account of courage quite closely and,in general, the chapter stresses the importance of virtue ethics for the militaryprofession.It is not all virtue ethics, however.The works of Lawrence Kohlberg andJohn Rawls are deemed important and useful, especially on the topic of moraldevelopment, and Military Ethics covers them quite extensively, yet at the sametime the book is realistic about both the level of moral development mostpersonnel are on, as well as the progress that can be made.Both Kohlberg and Rawls are adherents of rule-based ethics, the mainalternative to virtue ethics, inspired by the works of Immanuel Kant, and do notsee much of a role for traits of character.Rule-based ethics stress the importanceof universal, categorically binding moral norms.It asks us to follow these moralrules against our natural (selfish) inclinations, where virtue ethics call for thedevelopment of good inclinations: we are virtuous when doing the right thinggives us pleasure.The philosophy of autonomy is sometimes considered less aptfor the military because, with its emphasis on rules and duty, it supposedly doesnot invite the kind of supererogatory acts the military depends on.Rule-basedethics allegedly aims at no more than at the ethical minimum, whereas virtueethics asks for a lot more.However, although asking no one to go beyond the callof duty, this main alternative to virtue ethics does require quite a lot of militarymen and women: moral duties are to be followed, not because they are imposedfrom the outside and are backed by sanctions, but because they accept them bychoice, requiring quite an amount of altruism and an universalistic outlook.Despite the popularity of virtue ethics, this view still has its advocates: in arecent plea for educating military personnel to be morally autonomous, basedon the work of Kant, Susan Martinelli-Fernandez states that it is the mark ofa morally mature agent to conform to moral principles voluntarily and for theirown sake (Martinelli-Fernandez 2006, 55 6).Normative rules that are followed The Ethics Curriculum at the Netherlands Defence Academy, and Some Problems 125because of rewards and punishment will often not suffice, because rules are thennot followed when no one is around.Lawrence Kohlberg s influential model of moral development (Kohlberg 1981)is paradigmatic for this line of thought and widely used by military ethicists,including in Dutch curriculum.According to this three level (and six stage)model, people are egoistic and calculating at the pre-conventional level, the onething keeping them from misbehaving being their fear of punishment.Once atthe conventional level, they are also sensitive to peer pressure (at the first stage ofthis level) and the norms of society (at the second stage), and concerned abouttheir reputation.Adherence to universal principles is deemed the highest, post-conventional or principled level.Kohlberg (who, by the way, denounced virtueethics as a bag of virtues approach ) mentions Gandhi and Martin Luther Kingas examples of the post-conventional level.One military ethicist recently described Kohlberg s model, with its emphasison the morally autonomous individual, as troublesome in the military context(Toner 2000, 56 7).Inside the military, as is the case elsewhere, most individualsare stuck at the second, conventional level, but most soldiers perhaps functionoften at the first stage of this level, possibly more inclined to conform to thenorms of their peers than to the norms of society.This seems not to havediminished Kohlberg s popularity among military ethicists; the same authorwho called the Kohlberg model troublesome for the military maintains that themoral education in the armed forces should nonetheless aim at reaching a higher Kohlberg stage (cf Gerhard Kümmel: The soldier will have to develop & somesort of humanitarian cosmopolitanism that exists besides feelings of patriotism(Kümmel 2003, 432)).In line with both virtue ethics and rule-based ethics, the importance of rightintention is stressed on several occasions in the literature used at the NLDA: in thechapter on courage in the course book Armed Forces and Society students read thatmilitary personnel should study the writings of Martha Nussbaum and AmartyaSen in order to develop a more altruistic, universalistic outlook.Although thislatter remark is probably a bit too optimistic, the point that a moral act shouldcome from a right intention to deserve that predicate is probably something thatis elemental in most ethics education in the military, whether the emphasis is onvirtue ethics or rule-based ethics.The remainder of this article deals with the problems that follow from a policyof judging behaviour by intention.Two ProblemsAlthough in many ways different, the two dominant strands of thought in militaryethics, virtue ethics and rule-based ethics, both stress the importance of rightintention , implying that good conduct should not be a result of peer pressure,fear of punishment or concern for reputation, nor of a desire for praise, esteemor approbation.There are two possible problems here.First, this might set the bartoo high.The decision to join the military is, according to some, to a considerable 126 Ethics Education in the Militaryextent motivated by post-traditional reasons such as salary and the longing foradventure, and not by the wish to further morally worthy goals, for instancefreedom and democracy (see Janowitz 1960 and Cafario 2003).Similarly, in actualcombat, patriotism and abstract ideals do not seem to be the motivating factor(see Stouffer et al.1949 and Wong et al.2003).It is probably a bit too optimisticto think that the global village will be the kind of community that soldiers arewilling to run risks for.The second problem is that military men and women actually have little tosay about the causes they are fighting for.Even though Aristotle maintained, andmost contemporary ethicists maintain, that acts are only laudable insofar theyserve a morally just cause (see e.g.Toner 2000, 111 14), in general soldiers areinstruments of politics, and do not necessarily subscribe to the causes they arefighting for.In fact, they do not have a say in what these causes are, nor do theywant to have a say in such matters.In theory, it is and should be irrelevant to theprofessional soldier whether he is sent abroad to spread freedom and democracy,or for more base reasons such as oil or electoral success.On the other hand, [n]o political leader can send soldiers into battle, asking them to risk their lives andto kill other people, without assuring that their cause is just and that of theirenemies unjust. Modern princes work hard to satisfy their subjects of the justiceof their wars; they render reasons , though not always honest ones (Walzer1992, xi xii and 39).Clearly, there is a discrepancy here; what should motivate military menaccording to most military ethicists (from both the deontological and the virtueethic schools) i.e.working for morally just causes is not always the same aswhat really makes them tick, nor is it what should concern them according towhat is considered to be normal civil-military relations nowadays.In practice,armies have found a way to close this gap between theory and practice by usingsocial cohesion and peer pressure as motivators (see also Osiel 1999, 212 13),thus making irrelevant the fact that abstract causes do little to motivate or arenot of the soldier s own choosing [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]