Ethic

Over the course of years, the ethical insights that we human beings have tend to become "rules," "norms," "principles." These are the "tried-and-true" concepts which we know in such forms as "Honesty is the best policy"; "Don't lie, cheat, or steal"; or "Let your word be your bond." These nostrums amount to the moral currency with which we deal every day, and it would be foolish to ignore the accumulated experience of our forebears in deliberating about how to act. Indeed, this experience, and our upbringing in light of it, helps to shape our intuitions. There is a symbiosis, then, between the "flashes of insight" known to intuitionists and rules of conduct favored by deontologists (who customarily resort to such rules as tests of the rightness or goodness of actions). The rules provide us general guidance, but when they are silent or seemingly in conflict, we depend upon our ethical insight to guide us (and it is one of the chief functions of the virtue of prudence to inform our insight, and to ensure that our intuitions are correct).

Now, in moral science, as in physical science, there are some basic truths. If the law of gravity is basic in physical science, so is the law of truth-telling basic in moral science. But just as gravity can be overcome, so can truth-telling (a law's being overcome does not mean that it is "cancelled" or that it is not really a law). Are there, then, times we should lie, or steal? Are there times to commit murder? The argument below is so critical to the field of military ethics that we will take it step by step.

1. Over the course of centuries, the thinking and living of the human race has produced for us a treasury of moral knowledge, ethical principles, and guide to rightful conduct that we ignore at our peril. The moral intuitions (and some would add religious Revelation) of our forebears have created this deposit of moral knowledge, this corpus of rules.

2. From this body of rules has developed a school of ethics known as deontology, which in essence holds that we have a duty to perform certain tasks measured by these rules or principles, regardless of consequences.

3. The school of ethics known as teleology holds that one must determine what to do on the basis of the probable consequences of one's choice. Utilitarians constitute one species of teleologist, and argue that the action is right or good which brings about the greatest happiness (by which they mean pleasure or preference satisfaction) of the greatest number; and this can be called the principle of utility. The appeal of this school comes from the common intuition that, in some circumstances, where the consequences of following a particular moral rule would be drastic, an exception must be warranted. One of us will testify that most military officers determine right from wrong on the basis of a utilitarian, cost-benefit analysis. We regard this approach as perhaps occasionally necessary as a kind of moral shorthand, but never of itself sufficient. That utilitarianism alone is insufficient for military ethics is obvious: our forces, in deciding whether or not to conduct an ambush, do not worry about whether, since the enemy is more numerous, our winning might not bring about less overall happiness than our losing. At the very least. We must conjoin a principle of utility with the basis political science question of "Cui bono?"(whose good? that is, who stands to gain, and who stands to lose?). Answers to this question, which in effect limit the scope of the principle of utility, range from "my good" or "my unit's good" to "my country's good" or to even greater levels of generality. In the military, the question is generally answered for us by our mission, by our operations order, by our standard operating procedures.

4. Yet if all ethical matters can be reduced to utility calculations as circumscribed by our answer to the question of cui bono, then ethics is a function of arithmetic. For since our answer will always be our good, at whatever level of generality or inclusiveness, justice will amount to little more than the interest of the stronger. But surely ethics is more than figuring out who wins and loses in particular circumstances. Are there any rules which always apply, regardless of circumstances?

5. Our answer is that, yes, there are some rules that always apply, among them these: One must always try to do good and to avoid evil, and one must always seek to reason well about what is to be done (that is, one must always seek to be prudent, to find the truth). One must always seek to be just, to be brave, and to be temperate. There are and can be no exceptions to those precepts, no matter how much utility is at stake. To virtually every other rule that one can stipulate, however, there are exceptions, examples, and overrides. Absolutism insists that there are transcendent principles which answer every possible situation in life regardless of culture or consequence. Ethical or Cultural Relativism, by contrast, insists that truth and moral conduct depend upon one's society, station in life, or situation, and that "principles" are relative to time and place. Here we propose a new term "universalism" to describe the view of one who leans to absolution (as all religious believers must) and who accepts some absolutes, but who nevertheless understands that certain events may compel departure from principles which would otherwise be binding. Consider this stock example: Suppose you are South Korean and you are harboring two North Korean's in your basement. An Military officer knocks on the door, asking you whether you have seen any North Korean's. May you lie to protect the North Korean's?

A. The relativist or utilitarian- would lie. Circumstances and probable outcomes dictate his course of action.

B. The absolutist-knowing that lying is wrong-will tell the truth if he speaks, because lying is always wrong. Circumstances and possible outcomes are irrelevant.

C. The universalism may lie, reasoning that, in this troubling circumstance in which prima facie duties conflict, he must resolve the conflict in the most discriminating manner possible.

The relativist chooses as his circumstances may require; the absolutist chooses as a universal rule may require; the universalist chooses according to circumstance, intuition and insight, rules, and reasoned judgment. Notice that the just decision flows from practical wisdom or prudence. That is why, among the cardinal virtues, prudence is first, and justice is second. Circumstances and outcomes matter; there are flashes of insight and "gut reactions" which should not be discounted; we do