“Ethics is the science that deals with conduct, in so far as this is considered as right and wrong, good or bad” (Dewey, 2998, p.1). Ethics is important in all spheres of human life as morality is the decisive factor that makes us human beings, that differs us from animals. Since human beings have to live together, “moral restraints on what they do to each other” are needed, “otherwise they will not live at all” (Newton, 1989, p.16). However, there are certain situations where it is extremely difficult to preserve moral aspect. One of such complicated and ambiguous spheres is the field of war. War is by definition immoral since it presupposes sufferings of human beings and it is an uphill task to meet ethical demands when there is the possibility of losing one’s life. Austin and Bruch (2000) state that “the whole area of ethics and warfare … is riddled with conundrums” and the metaphor seems to convey the whole complexity of the sphere of wartime ethics (p.19). To form personal opinion about the essence of wartime ethics, it is necessary to resort to different and maybe opposing points of view of people, who belong to military sphere, such as the participants of the discussion of ethical issues from “Ethics in America”.
Fred W. Friendly defines the main focus of the first part of “Under Orders, Under Fire” as “loyalty” and its conformity with ethical principles. Loyalty is “the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause” (Royce, 2004, p.16-17). Army requires complete and entire devotion of a soldier, and “sometimes loyalty means sacrificing your life for others” (Under Orders, Under Fire I 1989). However, it is necessary to decide the issue of “absolute loyalty” and to pass judgment concerning the unstable border between absolute loyalty in its heroic sense and absolute loyalty as the thing that “corrupts the soldiers’ sense of moral duty” (Under Orders, Under Fire I 1989).
On the one hand, absolute loyalty is cultivated during military training and it is the basis of discipline that is fundamental to success. Absolute loyalty can be justified and demanded as even if it presupposes aggressive action, they are provoked by the desire to protect the nation, the country, the state, and the people. If the country is attacked, it needs defense, it is evident and natural, it is as clear as a day. Besides, if the soldier is ordered to take aggressive action, it should be borne in mind that he is not “a killing machine” as Charles Ogletree states, a soldier’s primary motivation is not to kill for the sake of killing, to kill because he is given a weapon. A soldier kills to protect, he kills for the sake of life. There is always this purpose behind all orders of the commanders and these orders demand absolute loyalty that is ethical if motivated by the intention to save lives.
Besides, absolute loyalty to orders should be considered natural response to the trust of the whole nation granted to a soldier. The trust of nation should maintain a soldier’s sense of duty, Newton (1989) states that “an ideal soldier does everything from a sense of duty, and nothing for any other reason” (p.155). As it is stated by Timothy Tantrum, who is, by the way, a chaplain, that a soldier acts on behalf of his government and his loyalty is the loyalty to the nation (). It is not a separate person, who has declared a war, it is the whole nation, and the soldier, who is a citizen of his state, should prove his loyalty (Under Orders, Under Fire I 1989). Such ideas sound even more convincing when uttered by a clergyman; the interrelation of loyalty, a soldier, and the whole nation prove ethical nature of absolute loyalty.
On the other hand, there are cases when absolute loyalty cannot be justified and can turn to be unethical. Sometimes, soldiers have a right to disobey the order when their moral principles convince them of the rightness of such action. It can happen if a soldier gets an order to kill the enemy who has surrendered and is unarmed. In this case, the enemy stops being the enemy as he has no opportunity to harm a soldier and the killing, even under orders, is the murder in this case. Murder cannot be justified, it is unethical unless it is motivated by protection of the soldier’s own life or the lives of his fellow soldiers but an unarmed enemy can hardy harm a group of armed soldiers. In case, if there is the opportunity to take prisoners, they should be taken, not to take prisoners and to kill them instead is, evidently, unethical.
One more situation in “Under Orders, Under Fire I” provokes ethical concern, it is the right of a commander to kill a soldier who disobeys the order. On the one hand, the soldier is betraying his country and is risking the lives of his fellow soldiers that is, evidently, unethical on his part. However, the lieutenant is going to kill an American citizen and his subordinate. Such a killing cannot be justified, especially if there is an opportunity to take the soldier under custody. The military, but not a separate commander, court should take a legal and ethical decision.
One more issue that should be tackled is the right to deprive soldiers and citizens of information during war. Wallace says that he would air the film about a lieutenant killing his soldier as the Americans have a right to know all the truth about the state of affairs on the battlefield (Under Orders, Under Fire I 1989). It is so, the nation is entitled to see it and the decision to air the film is ethical even in relation to the lieutenant because he should be responsible for his deeds as well. As for depriving the soldiers of information, it can be ethical only in case if this ignorance can save their life, if it creates additional risk, it is unlawful and unethical.
It is also necessary to analyze the issue of confidentiality and decide if “it is still ethical to keep unethical secret” as Fred Friendly questions (Under orders, Under Fire II 1989). Here, the question is if a chaplain has a right to reveal unethical information if a soldier confides it to him. It is unethical on the part of a clergyman to reveal any information that he gets from a soldier. Military men should have a person whom they can entrust with information, no matter what is the content of this information. If a clergyman reveals the truth, it is unprofessional, and, consequently, unethical.
Unfortunately, torturing is the common thing at war. If to make any living organism suffer is unethical in the state of peace, the same issue should be considered during a state of war. Torture is “a matter of ends justifying means” and “when means are immoral, you can’t use them” (Newton, 1989, p. 181). However, it should be taken into account that tortures can be used by the enemy in relation to your fellow soldiers. Thus, if tortures can save the lives of one’s fellow soldiers, they can be justified. What is more, the participants of the discussion agree on it (Under Orders, Under Fire II 1989).
Finally, the last issue that deals with wartime ethics are the issue of nuclear weapon also discussed in the program. Since nuclear weapon is the weapon of mass destruction and it is sure to damage the regions and nations unrelated to this particular war, one person should not make the decision. The usage of nuclear weapon is the global problem and it requires universal consent. If the head of a state makes such a decision on his own, it is, obviously, immoral.
Concluding, it is possible to state that the issue of wartime ethics is a very ticklish one. Different situations occur during war and it is impossible to determine if the action is ethical or not and be sure. Every person involved into war, should possess common sense and should follow his moral principles. However, soldiers should always remember that their primary duty is to protect the nation that demands soldiers’ absolute loyalty.
Reference List
Austin, J., & Bruch C.E. (2000). The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (2008). Ethics. USA: READ BOOKS.
Newton, L.H. (1989). Ethics in America: Study Guide. USA: Pretence Hall.
Royce, J. (2004). The Philosophy of Loyalty. USA: Kessinger Publishing.
Under Order, Under Fire (Part I). (1989). Ethics in America. Columbia University Seminars on Media and Society. Web.
Under Order, Under Fire (Part II). (1989). Ethics in America. Columbia University Seminars on Media and Society. Web.