Ethical Decision-Making in Military Leadership: A 2RP Analysis
This paper examines an ethical dilemma faced by a Navy commanding officer who is pressured to conceal fitness standard violations among sailors ahead of a personnel inspection. Using the 2RP analytical framework, the paper evaluates the situation through three perspectives: rules, results, and people. The rules perspective invokes the military principle of absolute truthfulness; the results perspective weighs the short-term reputational benefits of a cover-up against its long-term corrosive effects on command culture; and the people perspective considers the rights and relationships of all parties involved. The analysis concludes with a recommended course of action grounded in transparency and ethical leadership.
- Ethical Issues in the Vignette: Identifies the cover-up dilemma facing the commanding officer
- The Rules Perspective: Applies military truthfulness norms to the scenario
- The Results Perspective: Weighs short-term gains against long-term cultural harm
- The People Perspective: Examines rights and relationships of those affected
- Recommended Course of Action: Synthesizes 2RP analysis into a practical ethical decision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a structured analytical framework (2RP) consistently across all three perspectives, giving the argument a logical, systematic flow that is easy to follow.
- Each perspective is grounded in a concrete consequence tied to the specific scenario, avoiding vague generalizations and keeping the analysis focused on the case at hand.
- The recommended course of action integrates all three analytical perspectives into a single, practical conclusion, demonstrating how ethical frameworks translate into real decisions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis — using an established decision-making framework (2RP) to systematically evaluate a real-world scenario rather than discussing ethics in the abstract. This technique is common in professional ethics courses and shows the ability to connect theory to practice.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying the ethical issue and defining key terms, then devotes one section to each of the three 2RP perspectives (rules, results, people). It closes with a synthesis section that translates the analysis into a recommended action. This mirrors a standard applied-ethics essay structure: identify → analyze → recommend.
Ethical Issues in the 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 required by the Navy, and this would create difficulties with the visiting officials.
The Rules Perspective
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
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 receive 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 own divisions — 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 difficulties 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 recognize their mistakes and provide an incentive for them to address the same. From a results standpoint, ethical leadership that prioritizes long-term unit integrity over short-term favorable ratings produces better outcomes for the organization as a whole.
References
Drolet, M. J., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, J., Ruest, M., & William-Jones, B. (2023). Ethical issues in research: Perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 269–292.
University of California Press. (2004). UC Press E-Books collection, 1982–2004. Authors.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.