Ethical Issues in the Military

Ethical Issues in Question in the Ethical Vignette

Officials in the Department of Defense (DoD), like those in any other profession, are required to act ethically at all times to maintain a positive reputation of the profession of arms and build trust among members of the public. To do this, officials must be able to accurately identify ethical issues when they arise in the workplace. An ethical issue is a situation that compromises, either partly or in whole, one or more moral values or standards of professional ethical behavior (Drolet et al., 2023). The ethical issue that the protagonist (the commanding officer) in the vignette faces is whether to allow the cover up of violations of Navy protocols in order to portray a positive image of his division among his superiors during a personnel inspection. There is concern that three sailors in the officer’s division may not meet the personal fitness standards of officers in the Navy, and this would lead to issues with the visiting officials.

The 2RP tool provides a means for the commanding officer to make an ethical decision by analyzing the above ethical issue within the perspectives of rules, results, and people. The rules perspective examines whether an action is right based on principles, norms, rules, or laws. One of the fundamental rules governing the military profession is the rule of absolute truthfulness, which calls for honesty and integrity at all times without evasion (University of California Press, 2004). An untruthful or inexact soldier trifles with his fellow men’s lives and his government’s honor (University of California Press, 2004). Thus, based on the rules perspective, covering up the existing mistakes negates the rule of absolute truthfulness and would be unethical.

The results perspective looks at what yields the best results for those involved. Covering up the mistake would have two consequences. First, the division would get a positive rating from the visiting officials. At the same time, the decision would create an impression among junior officers that they could, under certain circumstances, cover up mistakes in their divisions too, including from the commanding officer. Ultimately, mistakes would escalate to dangerous levels without the knowledge of the commanding officer. On the other hand, failure to cover up the mistake would result in issues between the visiting officials and the officers who do not meet Navy standards during the inspection, and this could affect the division’s ratings. On a positive note, however, it would help the errant sailors know their mistakes and provide an initiative for them to address the same.

Finally, the people perspective looks at the rights of the people affected by a decision and the social relationships of the people involved. Covering up the mistake protects the errant sailors from the visiting officials, but does not help them address their problem in the long-run. At the same time, it diffuses the relationship between the commanding officer and his advisors, opening room for more unethical actions. Thus, based on the people perspective, the ethical thing to do is reject the suggestion to cover up the existing mistakes.

The 2RP framework calls for officials to always follow rules unless they face compelling character factors, people’s rights, or results to act otherwise. Based on the 2RP analysis, the most appropriate course of action would be to openly reject the advisor’s cover-up suggestion, remind them of the obligation to remain truthful at all times, and go on with the scheduled visit. As part of protecting rights, the commanding officer should call the errant soldiers and explain the risk that they face in the meeting with the officials for failing to observe Navy regulations. This would ensure that the sailors are adequately prepared for what may transpire during the inspection parade, and that they know their mistake and can own up to it. This decision would also help curtail such mistakes among other sailors in the division.