ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN THE MILITARY

Ethical Decision Making In the Military

Introduction

Military environment to carry not only the remnants of generally acceptable social rules and ethical expectations, but also to support a subset of ethical rules, which is specific only to that environment(Robinson Nigel Carrick 2008). People who live and work in these environments are often faced with conflicts between social ethics and environmental ethics.

Dodd 5500.7, Standards of Conduct, provides guidance to military personnel on standards of conduct and ethics. Violations of the punitive provisions of the military may lead to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Violations of the punitive provisions of the civilian staff may lead to disciplinary action without regard to the issue of criminal responsibility(Kennedy Moore 2010). Soldiers and civilian employees who violate these rules, even if such violations are not criminal conduct may be administrative measures, such as a reprimand. Use of the term "DoD employee" in this article includes civil servants and military personnel.

Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that support the superiority of reason, an attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence, or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive persons of their civil rights. Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fundraising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise participate in the activities of the commander finds to be detrimental to the order, discipline, or mission accomplishment, is incompatible with military service and prohibited. Members who violate this prohibition is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with Article 92 of the UCMJ.

Example

3 July, the U.S. ship Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf. Tragedy could have been avoided if the Navy trained the crew, based on research to identify ways of making the use of technologies in stressful situations, representatives of the American Psychological Association told Congress last week.The representative of the fleet disputed testimony of a psychologist.

A striking errors identified during the investigation of the Navy decision to the crew that the jet is descending as if to attack, when in fact it was rising, says psychologist Richard E. Nisbett of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Computerized monitoring system at Vincennes first wrong altitude aircraft and identified it as the F-14 fighter jet, but then corrected himself. The report concludes Navy crew members responsible for evaluating surveillance data are not carefully analyze the initial error on your computer. In addition, the skipper paid more attention to their increasingly heated messages about emergencies than the new displays are generated by computer.

Expectations of an imminent attack crew probably plays an important role in their failure to revise early signs of attacks on computerTogether with the police, the armed forces have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. It also means that the American army, if directed to it must use force. Members of this organization should be trained in the use of force ...