Ethics in teaching and education

Teaching Methods: Ethics in the Military Classroom

Ethics Instruction

Special Considerations for Ethics Instruction in Military Classrooms

Teaching Ethics to U.S. Soldiers in a Classroom Environment

Today, the United States is prosecuting two ground wars in the Middle East with the prospect of a third (or fourth) elsewhere looming on the horizon. The war on terrorism has forced the U.S. armed forces into encounters where the enemy is virtually indistinguishable from civilians, and the rules of engagement are drastically different from those that characterized many previous military engagements. In this environment, the need for ethics instruction has assumed new relevance and importance as soldiers are the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq are constantly confronted with unfamiliar and potentially deadly situations that are beyond their control. In fact, all professions can be said to have a need for ethical standards that serve as a guide to its members to help them recognize appropriate actions from inappropriate ones, and this is certainly the case in the U.S. Army today. To this end, this paper provides an overview of the problem to be considered, a discussion of ethics instruction in general and classroom ethics instruction in the U.S. Army in particular, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Background and Overview

According to Bruhn, Zajac, Al-Kazemi and Prescott (2002), "The issues surrounding professionalism and a code of ethics are part of a broader concept of what constitutes good citizenship. Good citizenship is a product of organizational culture and its psychological structure and members' interpretations of them" (p. 461). "Good citizenship, therefore, means more than going to work everyday and fulfilling one's contractual obligations. Indeed, it means exhibiting characteristics of 'the good soldier syndrome' and is characterized by these attributes: altruism, helping, conscientiousness, prosocial behavior, neighborliness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue" (Bruhn et al., p. 462). These are clearly desirable attributes, but Davis (1999) emphasizes that such ethical instruction must be conducted in a formal classroom setting or learned "on-the-job" because they are industry-specific. It should be noted, though, that some observers question whether teaching ethics is even possible by maintaining that it is too late to begin ethics education at the university or college level because most students come to a higher education institution possessing a firm set of values that are not likely to change; in addition, some critics suggest that ethics courses cannot be effective because values are formed early in people's lives and "honesty" is not a course that can be taught (Sims, 2002). Likewise, Jensen (1997) reports that, "Scholars, teachers, parents, and the general citizenry are increasingly pondering whether ethics can or should be taught in schools" (p. 13).

Ethical instruction today, though, comprises much more than fundamental concepts of "honesty." As Davis advises:

Because they are special standards, professional ethics are more than mere ordinary morality or common sense. Like other special standards (for example, law), they cannot be learned in most families, religious institutions, or primary or secondary schools. Generally, they must be taught as part of a formal professional education or learned in some less formal way (for example, by copying what others do in a workplace). (Davis, pp. 111-112).

Although there are some distinct benefits to be gained from "learning by doing" many aspects of a profession, Davis maintains that ethics instruction in particular is best accomplished in a formal classroom setting for the following reasons:

That ethics is extracurricular suggests that problems of professional ethics are rare, not built into the day-to-day work of a profession; and,

Extracurricular approaches treat professional ethics as voluntary, something good to know, not something necessary for minimal competence in the profession.

Ethics instruction is therefore considered a necessary component for "minimal competence in a profession" and these issues are discussed further below.

Ethics Instruction

While some studies to date indicate that ethics is difficult or even impossible to teach, other recent research has determined that ethics courses can have a significant effect on ethical sensitivity and reasoning skills (Sims). While the "golden rule" may apply in a universal fashion, ethics instruction is typically more fine-tuned to a specific culture or professional setting. For example, Davis (1999) points out that, "Professional ethics are special (morally permissible) standards of conduct governing members of a particular profession because they are members of that profession" (p. 111). One of the biggest problems facing ethics instructors, though, is the highly subjective nature of the concepts involved. Indeed, not only do these perceptions differ from society to society, they frequently differ from individual to individual in ways that affect the ability of ethical instructors to delivery quality educational services. For instance, in her essay, "Teaching Ethics Isn't Enough," Kienzler (2004) advises, "Human nature seems to give us a tendency to see the ethics problems in our students' choices, but we sometimes overlook the ethics problems in our own choices. When we think about ethics, we generally mean teaching ethics to students, not examining our own ethics" (p. 291). In this regard, Kienzler suggests that there is a certain "lead by example" quality necessary for effective ethical instruction: "Many of us now teach ethics, but we also need to think about our own ethics. I think we do not ordinarily do this" (Kienzler, p. 292). Furthermore, the traditional concepts of the role of ethical educators in the United States are fundamentally different from those in many other countries today (Gutek, 1993).

While it is therefore difficult to conceptualize ethical instruction in completely universal terms, there are some general guidelines available to help people distinguish between ethical and non-ethical behaviors. For example, Ashmore and Starr (1994) emphasize that, "Thinking men and women create a preexisting moral duty. That is, all those men and women who have agreed to respect a specific set of human rights, have created for themselves in the future, a pre-existing moral duty to respect those rights for all persons" (p. 164). This does not mean, of course, that such mutual respect and moral duties include acknowledging what is not there. As Cahn (1986) emphasizes, "Surely respect for our fellow human beings does not require resorting to the obvious fiction that everyone is excellent at everything" (p. 26). It does mean, though, that such moral duties are a concomitant of a given profession and these considerations extend to the armed forces as well, and these issues are discussed further below.

Special Considerations for Ethics Instruction in Military Classrooms

The issue of military ethics is certainly not new. In fact, the philosopher Epictetus developed an ethical manual for the Roman field soldier entitled Enchiridion (Wakin, 1986). The need for timely instruction in military ethics, though, has not evaporated or even diminished in the intervening millennia, but are rather even more pronounced today. As the Secretary of the Army stated: "In the recent Global War on Terror, the Army has, more than ever, become an advocate for American values - fair play, equal treatment, and respect for rule of law. In conducting Army missions, we must be mindful of the ethical values which are the foundation for our roles as America's representatives to the world" (Harvey, 2005, p. 1). There is far more involved in such ethical instruction than avoiding the perception of the "ugly American soldier" abroad though. According to Jensen (1997), ethical guidelines "must be flexible, but they represent tools created from past experience, thoughtful insight, and high aspiration, and enable people to avoid being immobilized by the tension and urgency of situations calling for immediate ethical judgments" (p. 11).

While some observers might maintain that the term "military ethics" is an oxymoron, the fact remains that the armed forces have the same need for such instruction as any other profession. For example, in their book, Legitimacy and Commitment in the Military, Wyatt and Gal (1990) make the point that some observers might suggest that there is little room in the military curriculum today for ethical instruction, but in reality, the need is greater today than ever before. According to these authors:

Legitimacy, commitment, and moral values -- all are key terms in the area of military ethics. The term military ethics itself would be called by some an oxymoron -- what does the military have to do with ethics? After all, the ultimate function of every military organization is to execute collective violence in the service of social goals. Our soldiers are expected to perform -- with great decisiveness -- those very destructive actions that we have always preached to them never to do. It is because of this moral dilemma that the military depends so critically on such concepts as military ethics, commitment, and legitimacy. (p. 3)

The bottom line for ethical instruction in the U.S. Army, then, relates to individual perceptions about what is appropriate and what is not, but it also relates to the fundamental mission of the organization. Soldiers - like their military counterparts in the other armed services - are supposed to provide "selfless service"; these considerations form the basis of military ethics. In this regard, one general officer states, "Military ethics based upon 'me-ism' or 'egotism' cannot function. Military ethics is about knowing whom and what we owe. That is exactly what is meant by 'service before self' (in the Air Force), 'selfless service' (in the Army), or 'commitment' (in the Navy and Marine Corps)" (Toner, 2003, p. 37). This larger sense of duty and responsibility is the crux of military ethics today: "Military ethics cannot properly exist without the concept of owing. If we know why we owe what we do, we are able to recognize the obligation, responsibility, and duty which give rise to moral thinking and ethical reasoning" (Toner, p. 37).