Ethics Theory for the Military Professional by Colonel Samuel Maloney, Article Review Example

In the article by Col. Samuel Maloney, he describes such condition of defining ethical measures as a source of complex pressures. Considering their position in the society, military members are expected not only to serve the government [which is considered their primary employer] but they must consider the larger need to serve the people [who are considered to be their primary stakeholders]. Generally, a military leader is expected to do so much when it comes to protecting the society whenever they face adversities. Colonel Maloney focuses on discussing two particular issues. One is the identification of the fundamental pressures that define ethical responsibilities of people, and two is the importance of applying ethical measures when ethically-based problems arise. Along with these two concentrations, he also tries to outline the most basic principles that are supposed to provide military members [especially those on higher positions such as generals] the proper guideline to follow when dealing with issues of ethical concerns. Weighing the needs of people and the dictates of the government against their own personal principles as well as the principles of military profession is a basic source of pressure, which becomes intense and complex.

Ethics is one of the most abstract yet the most important aspect of any profession or career. In instances when managing or leading other people become a part of the picture, ethical measures become a crucial source of distinction of whether or not a particular individual should be considered successful and efficient at his post. For the members of the military force, ethical measures become a complex basis for high distinction of integrity, and efficiency conducting tasks assigned to them. It is evident that Maloney wants to point out that it is valuing the worth of their decisions directed to stakeholders that becomes the deciding point of each final judgment for the high officials of the army. The question “which or who would they give more attention to, what particular aspect of being a military member do they actually have to follow when faced with complex situations” (56) remains a core determinant on the actions and responses that generals and other officials alike follow when faced with crucial situations. These questions often accompany military generals as they face each task they are assigned. When confronted with several issues and several choices of resolution, Colonel Maloney mentions that most generals follow their instinct. Given that there are some issues that do not specifically have exact guidelines suggested, officers are left to decide on their own. These situations often involve ethically defining conditions that could create an alteration on how a person from their own team would be defined in their life as soldiers and as military servants.

Basing from Maloney’s study and research, honesty, trust and loyalty are among the elements considered to be the foundation of a strong military army. This fact provides a new foundation of structure in the army with the generals placed forward to make sure such aspects of camaraderie exist. In this case, it is important to accept that for the military leaders, it is hard enough to handle whether or not to choose death [which is a part of their job description when it comes to dealing with war]; it is even harder to handle issues that may involve the conditional relationship they share with their colleagues. Ethical measures set out under a specific guideline is suggested by Colonel Maloney as a strong source of military confidence hence assuming the generals’ need to be more vigilant in following the rules set out for them than vaguely deciding on their own on how to resolve ethical issues in the organization (57).

The writing of Maloney is clear, concise and direct to the point. However, there is a problem with his argument on creating specific ethical guidelines. The idea about the establishment of ethics is based on principles and not specific laws. When a law or a guideline is established then everything becomes compulsory. With the implementation of such rules, the role of the generals would be much easier to accomplish, but then again once such a tool is established, then the idea of “ethics” becomes unclear. Perhaps, it is the deeper and more concentrated practical training on generals (Hau, 2011) that should be improved and not the laws that are being followed by the organization itself.

References:

Maloney, S. Ethics Theory for the Military Professional. Air University Review 32, no. 3 (March–April 1981). http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/maloney.pdf. (Retrieved on February 11, 2013).

Hau, M.R. (2011). Morality and Professional Military Ethics: A Paradox? http://www.dep.forces.gc.ca/publications/hau-eng.aspx. (Retrieved on February 11, 2013).