Are we properly motivating our warfighters to act morally by having separate ethical codes?

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:34:38 -0500

the Army Values (a virtue-based moral system that uses mnemonics to aid retention)
the Air Force Core Values (a duty-based moral system that relies on a tiered approach to memorization)
the Marine Corps Values (a virtue-based system that relies on simplicity)
the Navy Ethical Compass (a duty-based moral system that uses do/do-not statements)

Each system has something to offer and is loaded with tradition, but do troops even know what they mean. Are they given the tools in IET to get their heads wrapped around what is asked of them. I would argue that they do not, but I'm interested in stories or reasons why you might disagree (or agree).

Finally, what can we do to ensure our warfighters can make better decisions (both ethical and neutral) when in the face of a dilemma?

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Nov 22 at 2015 8:14 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 08:14:19 -0500

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member Back in the days before 9-11 we didn't have or need all of these gimmicks they came up with when they lowered the standards for entry into the services. Well, that and the services are so damn PC now. Sorry to say I am glad I am retired.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 22 at 2015 8:15 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 08:15:00 -0500

I think too much emphasis is being placed on these newfangled codes. Why don't we just use a little bit of commonsense and the UCMJ as our guides. Unfortunately the people in charge feel that they was continually change the rules and the codes

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Nov 22 at 2015 10:49 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:49:09 -0500

TL/DR: Along with PC, these codes have the exact opposite impact from what is intended.

In my opinion, these codes are seen as "just another drill, to be done to standard, without thinking too much about them, so I can get on with my day." In other words, just like the annual GTC training, info assurance class, etc. There is generally only the one "right" service answer, and everyone knows what it is - at least by the second iteration. Therefore, what is needed is memorization and recitation. Cooperate and graduate, or at least get released on time. Group think is not only not discouraged, it becomes the actual point.

What isn't needed is critical analysis and thoughtful exploration of issues. Sadly, changes to values don't happen due to memorization and recitation. Well, there is a change to one, when you decide it's OK to lie to get by..... And the more we insist on PC in the force, the more we get of that change. And every time some hypocrisy is exposed, we put on our surprised face.

If anyone doubts the above, I would point them to a very recent discussion here - I don't have the link, but it was in a Navy context, about someone being REQUIRED to share their personal thoughts in a "sensing" session.

Or at your next mandatory "consideration" briefing, take a contrary position and report back on how that worked out for you.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 22 at 2015 1:42 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 13:42:38 -0500

I've been out of this game for a good minute, but from what I see working with the Active Forces on a daily basis, I'm both disappointed in what I see, and glad to be retired from it...

Response by SSG Katherine Likely made Nov 23 at 2015 9:43 AM

SSG Katherine Likely — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:43:32 -0500

When i went in - 1978 - it was assumed you knew what honor was, it was assumed that you knew what your duty was and all the rest.

If you weren't the type of person to put others ahead of your needs and wants in a selfless service what were you doing there? After all we are team players - no one person (except maybe the Hollywood Rambo) can do it all.

Just as you respected your elders you were to respect the uniform even if you dislike the person wearing it. A person integrity was raped up in their personal courage - it was assumed that you knew that and that you would be it without reading words on a piece of fancy paper.

If you have to read it - what does that tell you about that person?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 2 at 2015 5:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:06:38 -0500

You need to address Law of Land Warfare.