Applying Ethics in the Armed Forces

In Rob Reiner’s 1992 film, “A Few Good Men”, two ethical approaches to life are illustrated most profoundly in four main characters.

  Protagonist Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise, is in direct moral contrast to the antagonist of the film, Colonel Nathan Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson.  Kaffee effectively illustrates the importance of using the ethical framework of the common good approach while Jessep shows the flaws inherent in the virtue approach.

The approach taken by Kaffee ensures that society is seamless in morality and that the Marines are not a group that is outside of either the law or common morality.  Jessep, however, shows that virtues or ideals that commanders demand of subordinates in the military can contradict the virtues of the common person and the common good.

The remaining important two characters are the conflicted and court-martialed Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private Lowden Downey.  These are Marines that rested their trust in their commander and must later learn to trust their attorney Kaffee and the integrity of military law.

Dawson and Downey first come to the attention of Lieutenant Kaffee when the two are accused of causing the death of Private William Santiago.  It was later discovered that the two were either directly or indirectly encouraged to initiate a “Code Red’, which is a form of Marine self-policing, where weaker member were scared via different methods to become stronger, better Marines.

The men have allegedly stuffed a rag into the mouth of Private Santiago, resulting in his death.  It becomes clear that the men will not speak of the crime in question, due to the honor code of Marines.

It later becomes clear, as well, that Gitmo is viewed as a very different place with very different values.  When the Marine Commander Jessep is accused of his role of creating such an immoral climate that results in a man’s death, he states that he has “a greater responsibility than [you] can possibly fathom”.

Learning that the military culture may have a separate moral culture surrounded with different ethical mores, the question becomes are Dawson and Downey are morally blameworthy?

Since Colonel Jessep appears to utilize the virtue approach while simultaneously instilling an atmosphere of silence and brotherhood in his Marines at Gitmo, a small island apart from the rest of the world, to not follow his instructions would be unthinkable.  To Jessep, his Marines are men above reproach and question and given the task of protecting their fellow soldiers in a place that is always in danger of outside harm.

  The virtue approach that he instills in men like Dawson and Downey are to the effect that “a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles” (Velasquez, et al, 1996).

These virtues and principles were the cornerstone of the survival of the two men in question, they believed that there was no possible to way to refute or refuse any orders given by their virtuous commander.  The virtues practiced and preached by Jessep were courage, strength, silence, and submission.

Above all else these men learned, also, that they must always submit to their superiors in all they were asked to do.  For this reason, these men are not entirely blameworthy, as if they would have refused direct orders, they would have lost their virtue and in essence the very fabric of their lives.  The moral questions of virtue and common good become the fabric of the court hearing.

Lieutenant Kaffee concerns himself with the ethical issue of the common good approach to ethics and instills the positive points of virtue theory by displaying compassion, fairness, and integrity.  The Common Good approach essentially deals with an idea that individual good is equated and ensured with public good and that individual, honorable traits should be shared as a community in a healthy fashion.

In this way, goodness, is not good if it is not shared.  It can be said, then, that in order to recognize good to share it, we must also be able to recognize bad or “evil”, in order to know how to counter it in a world of free will.

“Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society” (Velasquez, et al, 1996).

In this way Kaffee shows that Gitmo is a part of the larger world and that justice should be served to ensure that the military and the rest of the world can achieve fairness.  Jessep is shown as culpable in his actions and Kaffee assures Dawson that a person does not need to have a patch on his or her arm to have honor.

This phrase means so much to the Marine, who was simply following orders in a misguided mission.  Had he not been subjected to the immorality of his commander, he would have been a good soldier.  But, he cannot return to his duties and must then show honor in his daily life, hopefully Kaffee has illustrated this honor and the uselessness of rank, faulty reasoning, and a simple patch on one’s arm that does not assume morality.

In closing, “A Few Good Men” in an excellent film to analyze in context of morals and ethical approaches.  The two illustrated approaches of virtue and the common good can be seen as a recurring theme throughout the work.  The actors all display their ideas and ideals of morality and a code of honor.

The misguided and displaced ethical approaches and results are magnified to display their potential risks while the important and useful ethical approaches are displayed in memorable fashion with justice being more than a part of a court proceeding, it becomes a part of a new honor code for all affected.

References

Schickel, Richard.  (December 14th, 1992).  “Close-Order Moral Drill”.   Time.    70.

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T, Meyer, S. J. & Meyer M.  (Winter, 1996).    “Thinking Ethically:  A Framework for Moral Decision Making” in Issues in Ethics.  2-5.