Open Category
J-SCOPE
By Mrs. E.M. Wortel
Faculty of Military Sciences
and
Major J.P.M. Schoenmakers
Introduction
Rawahgedeh in
A deliberate and ruthless action of Dutch
military in Rawahgedeh: A Dutch commander ordered the
mass execution of the inhabitants of Rewahgedeh,
assuming that there were guerilla among the villagers. Indonesian sources claim
400 civilians lost their lives, including many women and children (Dutch
sources estimate 150 civilians lost their lives). There were no weapons found
in the village. On the Dutch side there were no casualties.[1]
This Dutch equivalent
of
Despite cases such as Rawahgedeh, most members of the military take pride in
their country, for their culture and the values that they cherish. This is of
great importance to our society, as societies do not depend on rules and regulations
but on the deeper values and self-discipline of its people to accept and
understand those rules and regulations and live by it as a statement of ‘who we
are and who we aspire to be’.[3]
Members of the military should by definition have this self-discipline.
While it can never
guaranteed that war crimes and abuses will never occur again; we can do as much
as possible to prevent it. Ultimately, the actions of individual members of the
military can be subject to moral evaluation: Each soldier has a moral
responsibility. Military ethics is an important tool to stimulate moral
awareness and moral competence.
The aim of this text
is to discuss useful methods of teaching military ethics. This paper is divided
in three main sections. First, we state that moral competence should be the aim
of military ethics education. We will elaborate on the exact definition of
moral competence. Second, the importance of introspection and personal
development versus the image of a moral drill sergeant will be discussed. The
idea of a moral drill sergeant displays a view on moral pedagogy which is
instrumental and which turns soldiers into automatons, while introspection and
personal development reflect a view of moral pedagogy which aims at the
development of inner discipline. Third, we will offer a comprehensive proposal
on how to enhance teaching military ethics. Like in other Armed Forces, in the
Royal Netherlands Army military ethics has become part of basic and advanced
training courses of both officers and NCOs. At the moment the ethicists of the
Netherlands Faculty of Military Sciences and a working group of NCOs are
developing a course that aims at further deepening the moral competence of
NCOs. Pedagogical methods in this Train
the Trainer course will serve as an example of the proposal how to further
stimulate moral competence.
Moral competence
Since the end of the
Cold War, military deployments for ‘military operations other than war’—have
increased significantly. These deployments lead to new ethical challenges.
Since it is impossible to discuss all possible ethical dilemmas beforehand, it
is essential to guarantee that military personnel involved has both the
necessary skills and moral competence that prepares them for the ethical
dilemmas they may encounter. Military ethics should be taught at all military
education institutions.
The Royal Netherlands
Army educational institutions aim at teaching competences. That is, a
combination of knowledge, skills and attitude.[4]
Teaching military ethics aims at developing moral competence.[5]
Moral competence is the capacity and willingness to perform one’s tasks while
considering the relevant facts and interests of different parties.[6]
It entails five main components. First, the ability to recognize a moral
dimension. Without this capability there will be moral blindness; ethical
dilemmas will not be noticed. The second component is the ability to define the
moral dimension of a situation or dilemma and to describe which values are at
issue. This is vital in order to arrive at a judgement about an ethical
dilemma. The third component is to be able to communicate this judgement
towards others. Which assumes that one understands which values are at issue.
Fourth, one needs the will to act upon one’s decision and fifth one needs to be
accountable for one’s actions.[7]
Part of developing
moral competence is to stimulate moral commitment to local communities.
Psychological processes in groups such as de-individualization, group
conformity but also frustration, can easily lead to aggression towards these
communities.[8]
In order to avoid this, it is important that members of the military are aware
of and can recognize such psychological processes. It should be recognized that
ultimately everyone has his own responsibility.
Developing a moral
competence is to become aware of one’s
own ethical codes and standards, this will assist in communicating one’s
judgement towards others. This is an important part of the process of
stimulating ‘inner discipline’, of understanding rules and regulations and
actually living by them. The process takes place at a cognitive, emotional as
well as at a volitional level.[9]
All three levels are essential. Rules and procedures do not guarantee ethical
behavior. Moral responsibility and moral
commitment begins with realizing and experiencing that certain activities are
not acceptable. When codes of conduct are viewed as rules only, it will be much
easier to abandon them in times of temptation and fear. In order to guarantee
that codes of conduct are internalized, the process of internalizing ethical
codes should also take part at an emotional and volitional level. Therefore, it
is essential that members of the military can develop their values themselves
instead of being forced to change them.
Shannon French depicts
moral competence as ‘the warriors code’; it is the shield that guards ‘our
warriors’ humanity.[10]
A ‘warriors code’ as advocated by French cannot be reduced to a list of rules,
rather it is an internalization of regulations, concepts, culture and traditions,
which together result in an understanding of what it means to be an honorable
member of the military. Without such an attitude or ‘warriors code’ military
personnel are no good to themselves or to those with whom and for whom they
fight.
Personal
development versus moral drill
The concept of a moral
competence we describe assumes that people are capable of developing themselves
morally. This view is opposite to a moral drill; what Pauline Kaurin describes
by the metaphor of a ‘moral drill sergeant’.[11]
According to Kaurin ethics should be taught by drill: ‘frequent repetition some
instruction and less discussion’.[12]
The military drill as
described by Kaurin, as well as by Farrell,[13]
is important for ‘outer discipline’. It teaches (new) conduct or behavior
primarily by repetition.[14]
It is designed, for instance, to enable a military commander to move a unit in
an orderly manner and to provide formations for combat. Obviously, battle drill
is of crucial importance in the accomplishment of the mission. Members of the
military should always be able to respond immediately in case of specific enemy
actions and it is obvious that they should be drilled in, for instance, the use
of their weapons.[15]
The legitimacy of the drill depends on the specific situation. Therefore,
military personnel should always be able to explain the necessity and
legitimacy of a drill in a concrete situation.
On the other hand,
moral competence and ‘inner discipline’, cannot be taught by means of drill. If
one teaches ethics by drill, immoral drills and orders cannot be distinguished
from drills and orders which are morally sound. Since a drill aims at immediate
action without reflection, there is no possibility to consider alternative
actions. In other words, teaching only by drill will lead to moral blindness. A
moral drill cannot provide the consciousness to understand and realize the
possible inappropriateness of a battle drill (as an order that can immediately
be recognized as manifestly criminal).[16]
A morally blind person can never have moral competence, he cannot define a
moral dimension and therefore cannot come to a reasonable judgement about a
specific ethical dilemma.
A moral drill
presupposes a rather deterministic view of human development. Accordingly,
moral education would aim at replacing a person’s former values with those
values that are viewed to be essential to the organization.[17]
It is assumed that the best way to accomplish this is to push people to conform
themselves to (new) norms. This is completely different from the idea of
internalizing values on the basis of a free will.
Personal development
presupposes the possibility of moral development and of inner discipline. Moral
development is not the product of indoctrination but it emerges from our own
thinking about rules, values and moral problems.[18]
While this Kohlbergian idea might suggest that
development only occurs through formal reasoning, we acknowledge the importance
of the emotional and volitional aspect of moral competence and moral
development. What is central is that our view on moral development is
opposite to the deterministic idea of moral thinking. We argue that by
experience and education people are capable of developing themselves morally.
According to this view, teaching military ethics should stimulate people to
think for themselves, to discuss assumptions, and when they feel it is
necessary, to challenge the teacher's suggestions. Moral development remains a
product of the students’ own efforts.
Since the idea of personal
development assumes that people can develop morally, it does not aim at
breaking their personal ethic down. The Dutch Armed Forces takes all military
personnel serious as individuals who can improve their ethical skills and their
‘critical’ attitude. We take into account the existing skills, knowledge and
experiences of students. Regardless of rank, we assume that everyone has this
capability. The most important aspect of a critical attitude is to have a
critical relation to pre-established norms, in opposition to a blind obedience
to authority.[19]
Michel Foucault describes ethical engagement as ‘freedom practices’. In living
through such ‘freedom practices’ we are able to find the correct attitude
towards the community. According to Foucault, a situation in which power
relations are static; a situation of domination, such ‘freedom practices’ are
impossible.[20]
Maintaining an independent mind in no way undermines a rule-following approach.
Rather it should be viewed as ‘enlightened obedience’.[21]
The Dutch Armed Forces aim at such a loyal-critical attitude. Military are
loyal but can be critical once there is a concrete situation that gives cause
to protest. Ethical education does not
undermine proper authority, rather, it helps achieve strong support for authority
that is legal, moral and ethical.[22]Moreover,
it gives much needed guidance when the rules are not enough.[23]
Codes of conduct[24]
speak of fulfilling one’s tasks in a disciplined
way with integrity. We characterize integrity as a virtue—a key
virtue for understanding the quality of a person’s character.[25]
In this Aristotelian perception, virtues flourish only in the context of other
virtues.
A person’s integrity
is expressed in the way he or she deals with (ethical) dilemmas. The greater
the dilemma, the more the chosen course of action says about one’s integrity.
Joseph Badaracco states there are three key aspects
of importance in making decisions in ethical dilemma’s. First, they reveal
one’s true priorities, The decision shows which values or principles are most
important. Second, ethical dilemma’s function as a test; are the values which
are always claimed to be important really prioritized in actual dilemma’s?
Third, the decision’s made in dilemma’s are of major importance in a persons
character development.[26]
There are acts a
person of integrity cannot do. For that reason, there has to be a normative
aspect to integrity. It is unacceptable that a person can do morally horrific
acts and still have integrity; even the most loyal Nazi can never be a person
of integrity. A suicide-bomber or a fanatic, can also hardly be a person with
integrity. There are normative constraints on the principles or commitments of
a person of integrity. While the list may not be definite, there are some
constraints about which we can be certain. It is likely that some combination
of hypocrisy, self-deceit, weakness of will, cowardice, unacknowledged greed
and rationalization are involved.[27]
The lack of integrity of war criminals is primarily rooted in these features. A
person’s moral integrity can be judged in term of overall reasonableness of
their moral views and how they arrived at them, the sincerity with which they
are held, the fidelity with which they are acted upon and the extend to which a
person’s moral point of view is integrated with the rest of his life.[28]
How does one become a
person of integrity? Learning to be morally responsible is not, as Kaurin
suggests, achieved merely through frequent
repetition, some instruction and less discussion.[29]
The best way to ensure that military personnel will not commit a war crime even
if given (illegal) orders to do so by a superior officer, is, not to drill them
on codes of conduct and provisions of international law but rather to help them
internalize the significance of the history and tradition of the military and
of concepts such as honor and courage in order to develop a coherent sense of
what it means to be a member of the military.[30]This
will help them recognize and reject a criminal direction from their officers.
Developing ‘inner
discipline’ and an attitude of ‘enlightened obedience’, will help military
personnel to cope with difficult circumstances. To be conscious of one’s own
values will make it easier to discuss those values with others. Moreover,
knowing why one holds on to certain values will make it easier to understand
other perspectives. People will be able to discuss ethical dilemma’s with
others in a meaningful way.
The Non-Commissioned
Officer (NCO) is the backbone of the Armed Forces. The NCO is a commander,
trainer and combat leader; he also serves as a role model for his soldiers.
Therefore, how he behaves morally is crucial. In our view, it is necessary to
put at least as much effort in educating NCOs as Commissioned Officers.
How does one make
military ethics understandable to people with little or no background in
philosophical discourse and vocabulary? This section will discuss some concrete
proposals of how to enhance teaching military ethics to the NCO.
Teaching military
ethics is unsatisfactory if it is reduced to discussing ethical dilemma’s. If
ethics is limited to discussing case studies, the result would be that people
don’t really think through the problem but rather search for a trick to come to
a quick decision. It needs to be recognized that in order develop moral
competence and therefore to teach military ethics in a significant way, a
considerable amount of time needs to be invested. Character development takes
time but is a necessary precondition for discussing dilemmas. Students should
reflect upon their own ethical standards.
David Kolb´s well-known ‘cycle of learning’[31]
represents a learning spiral where the learner 'touches all the bases', i.e., a
cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. The NCO, as a target
group, is specifically focussed on the action base.[32]
Each time a theory is presented, the NCO immediately wants to know if, and how,
it is useful in his daily practice. In teaching military ethics, this is an
important point to consider; in to order motivate the NCO is crucial to connect
to concrete experiences.
In the Royal
Netherlands Army teaching of military ethics has become part of basic and
advanced training courses of both officers and NCOs. All cadets get
introduction classes in military ethics. In order to foster moral competence,
the Faculty of Military Sciences in the
The basic pedagogical
assumption underlying the program is that people acquire insight by thinking
for themselves and not merely by having insights being presented to them. In
order to foster moral competence there are several central subjects in the
course, including: the Socratic dialogue, personal mastery and moral (dis)engagement. We will shortly elaborate on each.
One of the most
renowned teachers in learning people to think for themselves was the
philosopher Socrates (470-399 BC). We present and use his method ‘the Socratic
dialogue’ as background information for trainers; they do not have to be able
to teach it themselves but rather they should be able to have a Socratic
attitude, which is to ask questions instead of looking for answers only.
Socratic teaching is not based on the indoctrination of good values, rather it
uses a specific kind of dialogue in which individual careful questioning is
stimulated.
If a group discusses a
fundamental question, such as ‘what is a good soldier’, the panel chairman or
trainer has to persist in asking questions concerning what is being said in
order for all participants to get a clear picture of the immediate causes and
key assumptions which are made. By doing so, the underlying values will become
obvious.[33]This
particular use of the Socratic method will help people to gain insight in their
own values and principles.
Socrates himself never
gave an answer to the proposed questions. Instead, by asking questions he made
the person asking the question answering it. Socrates believed in the teachability of virtue. According to him, thinking and
talking about virtues such as justice and courage was likely to make men and
woman more just and courageous. He called himself a gadfly, to sting people in
order to make them think. He also described himself as a midwife whose job
consists of assisting others to—by figure of speech—give birth to their thoughts.
Some also portrayed him like an electric ray, to paralyze or to perplex, like
pure amazement, which feels like the highest state of being active and alive.[34]
While there are some
basic learning objectives in the Train
the Trainer course, we realized that the development of the trainers will
not stop at the end of the course. Personal moral development is a life-long
process. Therefore, the course-takers will have to define their own
‘developmental goals’ on the first day as well as on the last day of the
course.
Recognizing that
learning is a life-long process does not guarantee, by itself, that people are
also motivated to engage in this process. It helps to relate to (military)
experiences of course-takers, and thus to talk with them instead of talking to
them. Peter Senge´s concepts of ‘personal
mastery’ and ‘mental models’[35]
can be useful in relating to personal experiences and growth areas. It is
necessary to take people seriously. By discussing specific growth areas openly,
people will become more committed and take more initiative to accomplish their
goals. Personal mastery is learning to achieve your personal desired goals and
to create an environment that encourages others to develop themselves towards
the goals they choose. Discussing what Senge refers
to as mental models is to be aware of the biases that exist in our internal
pictures of the world. Two people can observe the same event and yet describe
it differently. Each one connects with the experience differently by paying
attention to other details. We are constantly shaping these mental models and
we are basing our actions and decisions on them. In order to make responsible
decisions it is important to question these mental models.
In the Train the Trainer course we stress that,
apart from personal development, there are some important basic learning
objectives every NCO should have knowledge of. The NCO, both as trainer, combat
leader and commander, has to give guidance to the group process and needs
insight in some basic psychological processes, to recognize moral
disengagement.[36]
The psychologist
Albert Bandura has listed a number of signals of
moral disengagement. He explains how ordinary people are seduced into evil by
dehumanizing and labeling others, they can even be persuaded to see an illegal
killing as morally acceptable. This persuasion occurs by restructuring inhumane
conduct into ‘acceptable’ conduct. For instance by the use of sanitizing
language: the expression, for example, of pacifying a village could mean one is
ordered to burn it down. The use of exonerative social comparization;
our behavior is not so bad if you compare it to what ‘they’ are doing. It is
easy to deny personal responsibility in the harm one causes by displacing
responsibility; “I am not responsible, I was just obeying orders”. Such pleas
are well known from Nazi-War criminal trials. Discipline cannot be an excuse
for abdicating moral or legal responsibility in the case of war crimes. The Milgram experiment found that blaming and dehumanizing ‘the
other’ proved to be of extreme influence on behavior.[37]
In one of Bandura’s experiments an assistant called
the test persons "animals" and in another experiment,
"nice"; people were more apt to deliver what they believed were
increased levels of electrical shock to the other persons if they had heard
them called "animals". [38]
While submission to
authority and group conformity are important characteristics of the military
environment, it is crucial to be aware of these moral disengagement signs. It
is important that NCOs are trained to identify them in order to prevent a moral
slide.
Conclusion
Teaching military ethics does not guarantee
that there will be no more torture, no more cruel, abusive and degrading
treatment of ‘others’, no more cases such as Rawahgedeh, in the former Dutch East Indies,
no more My Lai, Abu Ghraib or more recently soldiers burning
the bodies of Taliban fighters and ‘using their smoking corpses in a propaganda
campaign against the insurgents’.[39]
Teaching military ethics is just one of the measures we can take in conjunction
with the encouragement of cultural awareness, coherent Rules of Engagement,
clear Standard Operating Procedures and an honorable commander’s intent.
Apart from basic learning
objectives, such as learning to recognize moral disengagement, military ethics
should focus on ‘developmental objectives’; it should stimulate moral
competence and ‘inner discipline’, which can be helpful for military personnel
in dealing with ethical dilemma´s they may encounter.
A moral drill does not stimulate moral competence since it contradicts the idea
that people can think for themselves. The focus should be on stimulating an
attitude of ‘enlightened obedience’, introspection and personal development.
This is realized through openly discussing concepts, values, regulations and
‘mental models’. Since moral development is, in our view, a product of the
student’s own thinking, methods such as the Socratic dialogue (and the Socratic
attitude) can be specifically useful in teaching military ethics in a
significant way.
Military ethics should
arm and strengthen all military personnel with an attitude of ‘enlightened
obedience’ or a ‘warriors code’; an
attitude that guards their humanity; which will help them during operations as
well as when they return home.
NOTES
[1] De Excessennota,1995, Sdu Uitgeverij Koninginnegracht, Den Haag, p.83
[2] Doorn, T.A.A. van, Hendrix, W.J. Nederlands/Indonesisch Conflict, Ontsporing van Geweld, 1985, De Bataafse Leeuw, Amsterdam, p.38
[3] Slaughter A., ‘America, be Beautiful; Degrading our Soldiers and Ourselves’ International Herald Tribune 0ctober 28-2005
[4] ‘Competentie Gericht Opleiden’ retrieved
[5] Karssing E., Morele Competenties in Organisaties, Van Gorcum 2000
[6] Iersel van A.H.M., Baarda,van Th.A., Militaire Ethiek, Morele Dilemma´s van Militairen in Theorie en Praktijk’ 2002, Damon p.331
[7] Verweij D.E.M., ‘Het belang van Militaire Ethiek voor de Krijgsmacht’ in Carré 7/8 2005 p.28
[8] Vogelaar A., ‘Normvervaging’ in Krijgsmacht en Samenleving, Klassieke en Eigentijdse Inzichten (ed.Moelker, R., Soeters, J.) 2003, Boom p.221
[9] Baarda T.A., ‘Morele Oordeelsvorming met een Dynamisch Model’ in: Praktijkboek Militaire Ethiek (ed. Baarda,TA. van Iersel, A.H.M. van, Verweij, D.E.M), 2004, Damon, p.414 (forthcoming in English)
[10] French S., The
code of the Warrior, Exploring Warror Values Past and Present p.242
Rowman&Littlefield publishers, Inc. Oxford 2003
[11] Kaurin P.M., The moral drill sergeant: On Teaching the ‘Grunts’ to do the right
thing , p. 9
[12] idem.p.9
[13] Farrell W.R., "Oft Forgotten Leadership Fundamentals," reprinted with permission from the Naval War College Review 41 (Spring 1988): 57-65, in Air War College Associate Programs, vol. 1, 3d ed., lesson 8, p.127-28.
[14] ‘Defensie Begrippenlijst’ retrieved 30-11-2005: http://home.co.mindef.nl/DGEF/IV-pool/begrippenmanagement%20defensie/cbk.htm
[15] Koninklijke Landmacht Handboek Leidinggeven in de KL, PlantijnCasparie
Zwolle 2002
[16] Osiel M.J., ‘Obeying
Orders, Atrocity, Military Discipline & The Law of War’ 1999,Transaction
Publishers, p.55
[17] Farrell
W.R., "Oft Forgotten Leadership Fundamentals," reprinted with
permission from the Naval War College
Review 41 (Spring 1988): 57-65, in Air War College Associate Programs, vol.
1, 3d ed., lesson 8, p.127-28.
[18] Crain W.C., ‘Kohlberg´s stages of Moral Development’, in Theories of Development. 1985, Prentice-Hall., p.118-136.
[19] Foucault M., ‘De Ethiek van de Zorg voor Zichzelf als Vrijheidspraktijk’, in Breekbare Vrijheid (eds: Helsloot,N., Halsema,A.), 1995, Boom/Parrèsia Amsterdam, p.89
[20] Idem. p.91
[21] Wakin M.M., Integrity First Reflections of a Military Philosopher, 2000, Lexinton Books, p.67
[22] Toner J.H. ‘Teaching Military Ethics’ in Military Review May 1993 p.33
[23] French S., The code of the Warrior, Exploring Warrior Values
Past and Present 2003
Rowman&Littlefield publishers, Inc. Oxford p.15
[24] Codes of Conduct such as: United Nations ‘Ten Rules of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets’; ‘Code of Ethics for the US Armed Forces’ and ‘Gedragscodes in de Krijgsmacht—een Overzicht’.
[25] Cox D., La Caze M. and Levine,P.L., Integrity and the Fragile Self, 2003, Ashgate p.xix
[26] Badaracco J.L., Onmogelijke Keuzes, Managers en Morele Dilemma’s, 1998, Schouten en Nelissen, p.62
[27] Cox D., La Caze M. and Levine,P.L., Integrity and the Fragile Self, 2003, Ashgate p.59
[28] Idem. p.68
[29] Kaurin P.M., The Moral Drill Sergeant: On Teaching the ‘Grunts’ to do the right thing , p. 9
21-11-2005: Http://atlas.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE00/Kaurin00.html
[30] French S., The code of the Warrior, Exploring Warrior
Values Past and Present 2003
Rowman&Littlefield publishers, Inc. Oxford p.14
[31] Kolb D.A., Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development
1984, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall
[32] Beleidsvisie op de Rol en Positie van de Onderofficier in de Nederlandse Krijgsmacht. December 2004, 30-11-2005: http://home.co.mindef.nl/structuregroups/afdelingen/Defensiestaf/Krijgsmachtadjudant/Krijgsmachtadjudant.asp
[33] Verweij D.E.M., Becker M.J., ‘ Socrates in de Krijgsmacht: De Rol van het Socratische Gesprek in Militaire Opleidingen’ in: Praktijkboek Militaire Ethiek (ed. Baarda,TA. van Iersel, A.H.M. van, Verweij, D.E.M), 2004, Damon, p.451 (forthcoming in English )
[34] Arendt H., The Life of the Mind, Volume one Thinking, 1978 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p.173
[35] Senge P.M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 1990, New York: Doubleday, p.139-143
[36] Bandura A. ‘Selective moral disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency’, Journal of moral Education 2002, 21-11-2005: retrievable from: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/BanJME.pdf
[37] Milgram S., Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View 1974 New York: HarperCollins (2004)
[38] Bandura A., ‘Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of inhumanities’, Personality and Social Psychology Review. [Special Issue on Evil and Violence], 1999, 3,p.193-209.
[39] Schmitt E., ‘ U.S. Investigating Report that Soldiers Abused 2 Taliban Corpses’, International Herald Tribune, Oct, 21 2005 p.5