Ethics, values, morale are "in". No institute is without its seminars, theologians have found new engagements as industrial advisers, industries are producing their checklists, religious dominations feverishly strive to adjust their inherited interpretations to the contemporary world. Being fashionable, ethics are not seldom presented and sold as fashion, an injection for short-time satisfaction over the fact that the question is raised and covered in the business strategy, in the business "design for battle", to use a military term.
But much of todays focusing on immaterial values, clearly go beyond the fact that the subject is in. In whatever culture, individuals who are intellectually and emotionally awake see more in life than material goals and achievements only. Fully consciously or not, also existential questions - from what, to what and why - are in the minds of the many. And then, it is generally accepted that in any endeavoure involving people in cooperation for a common purpose, an understanding of man in his entirety is a prerequisite for success.
A CHALLENGE AND A DILEMMA
Within the western and some related cultures, a fundamental feature is the respect for the human being and for human life. With such values imbedded, few people are confronted with greater ethical and moral challenges than those who on behalf of the society are expected to use lethal force against man. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are in battle, not during theorizing exercises at seminars, not behind desks, not at the computer of the R&D scientist demanded to combine respect for human life with the use of lethal force. They are on the battlefield challenged with the demanding task to draw the line between when to kill and when the law of war or the individual conscience of the man and woman makes this legally unacceptable or morally unbearable. The strain may most directly be felt by the infantryman in close combat, although the weapon delivered from a less directly committing distance may indeed be more indiscriminate than the bayonet. The nuclear- and other mass-destructive weapons represent a case on their own beyond apprehension. Under any circumstance, these penetrating ethical challenges of the soldier in the field may affect the very foundation of the military discipline and obedience which is so very necessary in any force in action. There is no easy way out of this dilemma. The Nuremberg process and later international courts and tribunals, have confirmed that no rule of engagement , no regulation or code of action within a military or any other force is freeing the individual behind the weapon, of whatever rank, from such very difficult personal evaluations and decisions. In international operations, where different cultures may be involved, and where the line of command may not always be precise, such ethical and disciplinary conflicts may be more likely to occur. These are challenges of a kind which have to be addressed in great seriousness. But the battlefield is not the environment for quiet contemplation. For men and women in military uniform and, beyond question, for the leader destined for military action in the field, the dilemma of combining a decisive professional discipline with the individual ethical and moral considerations which may be forced upon one in battle must be considered and digested in quiet and in advance. From experience and from literature we know that within the societies of those here present this is now being done. The initiative of this Academy is indicative.
BEYOND THE DILEMMAS OF THE BATTLEFIELD
Of course, the question of ethics for the military profession goes beyond the ethical and moral dilemmas of the nature so far mentioned. Not the least, bringing people to work together toward common goals requires high and demanding standards in leadership and in management. To a considerable extent, however, such qualities do not decisively differ from what is required within any complicated and challenging undertaking, military or civilian. In environments where political and military cooperation across national and cultural borders is required, there is a particular need to observe and understand the possible differences in thinking and in behaviour. These are differences which also may have their impact on the content and the style of leadership and management. Historical insight is a paramount requirement. There may be variations between the members of the large and potent society, and the smaller with less physical power at hand, between the technologically most advanced who might be tempted to believe that technology is the answer to most questions, and those who are more likely to consider psychological reactions on the part of the opponent. There may be differences in the approach to leadership between those who live in a society were egalitarianism is nurtured, and those who are brought up within a more pyramidical social structure. Those who draw their soldiers from a system of compulsory service, may find the challenge of leadership a little different from those who rely on a purely professional force.
But some qualities of leadership seem to be applicable to soldiers of most societies with whom NATO forces are likely to cooperate. Naturally, these qualities and values are not very different from those which we may hope that our soldiers, sailors and airmen will be tasked to defend: Respect for the uniqueness of all human beings, for their dignity and welfare.
THE UNIQUENESS Of THE ETHICAL CHALLENGE
The uniqueness of the ethical and moral challenge of military men and women of our societies is, however, that one is tasked to combine "You shall not kill" with doing just that. We know that the application of lethal force may be unavoidable. The alternative may be unbearable. Only too often the "absolute evil", in the form of an individual or a system, may appear in a position destructive to man. The absolute evil is seldom repearable, but it may be neutralized or destroyed. The means will often have to be of a kind which causes decisive pain. It is a demanding task to define when such force should be applied. This is basically a political challenge. But neither the military profession is freed from a responsibility to influence the political deliberations before such decisions are made. Only the professional who may be tasked to act with lethal weapons, knows fully what this implies.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]