Aristotle suggests that Virtue ethics is the foundation of a person’s moral character. At the core of the theory is the ideal virtuous person. A person that is kind and generous because part of their moral fabric seeks nothing in return for helping others develop good character traits. The development of a person’s moral character begins at a very early age and is influenced by several factors such as parents, family members, teachers, and others in society. Ongoing nurturing and positive role models are important aspects of the cultivation of virtues in a person. The development of good habits and traits in both behavior and action stabilize a person’s moral character. Ultimately these traits become the basis for the type of person one becomes and calibrate their moral character. The Virtue ethics theory highlights how one will behave when faced with a difficult choice and how one’s innate virtues influence the motivation behind the decision. For example, an army officer who has always demonstrated genuine commitment, care and passion with each of his soldiers is observed angrily shouting at a soldier.
According to the Virtue ethics theory, this isolated incident is not going to change the overall perception or internal make-up of this officer. He will still be an army officer who is respectable, possessing high moral character and who genuinely committed, passionate, and caring to his soldiers. He would remain an officer in whom others see a high moral character, virtue, and regard. Most likely, soldiers would simply assume the officer is having a bad day. If negative characteristics become a habit and a pattern of angry outbursts develops, Virtue ethics suggests that the bad habit be broken and good character traits redeveloped. Virtue ethics focuses on the good in people and suggests they strive for preserving goodwill because it is part of their moral compass and not because of a need for recognition or reward. Virtue ethics is the most efficient theory for an Army Officer to follow when compared to Deontological and Utilitarianism theories of ethics.
The Virtue ethics theory describes the conditions under which a person’s character can be used to justify or condemn their actions. Often people just act out of necessity, as a way out, or simply because they do not know what to do in a situation. Aristotle explains that people should always focus on how they do things, rather than what they do. For example, a soldier should focus on how he unarms a terrorist, rather than focusing on just unarming the terrorist. When thinking of how to unarm the terrorist, the soldier may just end up not killing the terrorist at the same time, giving value to all human life. Also, the argument that every virtue is the right balance between the virtue of deficiency and the virtue of excess gives a clear guideline that the soldier can follow. A soldier can tell if his virtue is in excess if he has very strong desires. For example, if a soldier is told not to attack a village and he knows deep inside that he wants to attack it, then his virtue is in excess and denotes excessive passion. On the other hand, the same soldier can know if his virtue is deficient if he is told not to attack a village and he feels relieved simply because of fear. In such a situation, the soldier will have to shed off some fear and reduce his passion for a fight to make the best decisions. Balancing the two extremes of virtue will also develop the soldier’s character. Thus, to develop the right character, the soldier has to focus on the virtue within the doctrine of the mean; that is, the virtue of deficiency and the virtue of excess.
Virtue ethics focuses on the good in people to help them make the right decisions or get the right judgment. Army officers go through a lot of psychological experience and their ethics and moral character are tested frequently. It becomes difficult to decide what is moral and what is not during a battle with an enemy that wants to kill you and your comrades. Nevertheless, the Virtue ethics theory makes the choice easier for the army officer. For instance, there are times when army officers are asked to attack villages that may be housing terrorists. Children and women also get injured during the mission, while some die in the process. Does this make the army officer a murderer or an immoral person? In every sense, the army officer is helping people’s lives because they are hunting down terrorists. Another example of Virtue ethics would be a situation where an army officer that sacrifices his life by jumping on a grenade in a battle to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. This army officer’s act exemplifies the idea of being a virtuous person. Moreover, the act is noteworthy because he is seeking nothing in return for the outcome of his action.
Justice is an important trait in Virtue ethics which translates well to an Army Officer because they need to be firmly and stably fair and reasonable. In virtue ethics, judging someone by an isolated event in life or single action is unfair. Instead, it is better to evaluate someone by the way they have been behaving, the values that they hold, and their past (re) actions. Army Officers have to be fair and just in carrying out their assignments and missions. Army Officers are responsible for ensuring that the people of the United States are safe and that their freedom is not jeopardized. In their duty, officers may be challenged with difficult situations and must make sure no personal bias affects their decisions. Virtue ethics proposes that for an army officer to be considered moral, they must prove to be fair and just. In the same vein, Virtue ethics suggests that they must always keep composure and be in control of their actions and show restraint as they are equipped with weapons. An army officer must withhold emotions, impulsive actions and reactions to be able to respond properly to threats, thereby enabling him to protect his country, comrades, and himself. Another important trait of Virtue ethics applicable to an army officer is courage.
Fighting for one’s country is an act of courage; thus it is morally right. Similarly, army officers tend to act according to the situation at hand when they are on the battlefield. Courage can help the officer to maintain their moral standings, as everything that they do is triggered by courage. The Virtue ethics theory also implies that the act of goodwill is a trait associated with a virtuous person. For an army officer, giving selflessly to others and endorsing goodwill is a natural practice expected of army officers every day and all around the world. Regardless of war or peace, there are always acts of goodwill shown by officers. All too often, there are news briefs or photos of officers providing kids from third world countries with sweets, a smile, a hug or a high five. There is no motive or agenda behind this act other than sheer kindness; this is done because it is instilled in the moral character and fabric of the officer.
Several other ethical theories can be used to describe behavior in people. Two other theories, deontological and utilitarianism will be analyzed in comparison to Virtue ethics. Immanuel Kant shaped deontological ethics by suggesting that a person’s actions can only be regarded as right if they are in accord with their duties. In the case of an army officer, anything the soldier does that is part of their duties is morally right. However, determining the duties of an individual can be difficult. For example, the army officer has a duty towards his country; he has to fight for his country on the occasion of necessity. However, the same army officer has a duty to his children back at home. If the army officer is a man, then he may be a father. Consequently, he must be there for his children, provide for them, and help them develop through being a positive role model. Using the above-mentioned example, it is possible to note an inherent conflict by just analyzing these two duties. A man’s duty to his country puts him in danger, thereby limiting his duty to his family. The deontological ethics theory is also bypassing the possibility that the army officer may encounter a highly stressful situation that may make him react differently from the norm. Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s views on utilitarianism ethics suggest that one’s actions should be judged by the amount of good it achieves.
It follows that in the case of the army officer, if an officer does something that proves more useful and less harmful, then the action is morally right. When questioning this theory, it becomes apparent that utilitarianism focuses on the officer’s action, rather than the officer’s character. Moreover, it does not offer any insight into whether the army officer involved in the action is morally right or wrong. In short, it is more about acceptable ethical behavior than moral virtue. Also, utilitarianism does not put a limit on the extent of the harmful action. The allowance of negative or harmful behavior can make decision making difficult for an army officer. For instance, when an army officer saves children from a burning house in a war-torn country it is considered a good act – even if the fire was started by his army, in the first place. Similarly, the ambiguity of “wrong” based on the amount of “good” can mislead the army officer. For instance, if a computer hacker compromises to the terrorists the regiment’s location for an attack so that the enemy can take advantage of an escape, it follows then that the hacker – according to utilitarianism – is not morally wrong, because he has thus saved the lives of the terrorists after all.
The two theories, utilitarianism and deontological ethics, can be used to explain different situations. However, they appear to be morally controversial when compared to Virtue ethics. In the same vein, the use of practical reason also referred to as phronesis, is easier than the use of duty. The soldier will not only try to be moral, but he or she will also try to be happy. He has to use the doctrine of the mean for him to achieve both.
In conclusion, Virtue ethics proves to be the best theory for an army officer because it has clearly stated principles that can guide the soldier in making decisions. Utilitarianism and deontology offer more options in determining the value and definition of morality and making moral choices becomes a double-edged sword. Decision-making can be hard and challenging to an army officer, considering the events and expectations that are associated with working in the military. The only theory that gives a clear road map on decision making is the Virtue ethics theory. Its doctrine of mean allows the soldier to be both happy with the decision made and be perceived as moral for taking up the same decision. Both utilitarianism and deontology have loopholes that make decision making difficult for the soldier. In turn, the soldier is more prone to making immoral decisions and laying the blame on his or her duty or justifying bad behavior using his or her past actions and reactions. Most vitally, the Virtue ethics theory allows the soldier to see the best in everyone in every situation.