Higher Moral Standard?

[A4sForever]

Let me preface by saying ... I know the difference between right and "wrong". I ALWAYS took care of my men .... and they took care of me. That's the way it ALWAYS works. And this is quite possibly gonna' raise a shit-storm with some PC types herein on AW .... but I really don't care --- and since no one else wants to say it:

Here's the way it is --- and why it's better to be an "O" than an "E".

RHIP: (Rank Has It's Priviledges) .... for better or worse .... the officers get cut more "slack". Is it right??? IN SOME SITUATIONS .... yes; maybe . Should the CO be responsible enough to stay out "after" LIB's expire ??? .... probably. Should the most junior E-man??? Probably not. To use a somewhat twisted family analogy for simplicity .... do you allow your children to have the same latitude and curfews that you (based on your supposed "maturity", experience, and history) allow yourself??? Of course not. It depends on what you have done, what you have "earned", and how you perform. But don't do the crime if you can't do the time ...

Does it set a proper example??? Maybe not. But then, all you smart guys can tell me what is a "proper" example. I have heard all the propagada and all the course material ..... and as I said ... my men alway took care of me. But then ... why do so many E-men want to be O's ??? Perhaps ..... to get a "better" deal??? I think (I know ) that I would. But you tell me .....

And one of my favorites with staying out "late" and answering for it : Don't "hoot" with the owls if you can't fly with the eagles .... get it???

You will be judged by how you do your job --- how you perform. And to reiterate ... I know the difference .... and so should you.

.... Oh, yeah ... I have no morals.

 

[pennst8]

A4s... any chance you want to make an East coast lecture circuit, sir?

We can acquire limes... even if it is 20 degrees out and snowing.

 

[bunk22]

Yes. Police Officers, CEOs, etc don't have the jobs that involve killing people and breaking things for the state. There's an awful lot of destructive at the fingertips of those involved in commanding a ship, aircraft, etc.

Police don't have a job that involves killing people? I'm pretty sure police officers carry a weapon (such as a handgun) and some officers, across the country have had to use them.........and kill with them. This might just be true for local, state and federal police.

At the same time, Naval Officers are trusted with the lives of America's sons and daughters. If their officers are unethical, how can we expect sailors to trust that the right decisions are being made? How can we expect citizens to send their sons and daughters to serve in the Navy? I don't think it would work if they thought Naval Officers weren't a cut above the rest in regards to ethical and moral behavior.

What is moral and ethical? Are we talking in the work space? Outside of work? If a squadron relaxes and parties at the local strip joint after a hards day work on a det, is it unethical? To some, I gaurantee you, it is. A good officer who works hard, fly's hard, earns good FITREP's and even earns command but sleeps with many different women while on cruise (he's married), is that morally incorrect if it doesn't effect his professional life? Many different faucets when we speak of morally and ethically correct.

 

[pennst8]

Police don't have a job that involves killing people? I'm pretty sure police officers carry a weapon (such as a handgun) and some officers, across the country have had to use them.........and kill with them. This might just be true for local, state and federal police.

(Sh!t. I should have taken that out of there... point taken.)

But at the same time, their mission is to enforce the law, not to conduct a war. Their power is far more limited and they don't typically go out with orders to shoot-to-kill as the first option.

Yes, a gun in the hand of a police officer will kill someone...and they have in the past... but its not quite the same as someone with the power to launch a cruise missile.

 

[bunk22]

But at the same time, their mission is to enforce the law, not to conduct a war. Their power is far more limited and they don't typically go out with orders to shoot-to-kill as the first option.

Yes, a gun in the hand of a police officer will kill someone...and they have in the past... but its not quite the same as someone with the power to launch a cruise missile.

So someone has to have a higher moral standard to kill someone? I think a police officer has to have the judgement, high moral standard not to kill someone.

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but it seems you're saying we have to be better because we (some of us, not me) are given the ability to kill someone?

 

[pennst8]

@Bunk22 - I kind of argued myself into the "stupid corner". I don't really know where I was going.

I think what I was trying to say is that to be put in a position where you have been given the ability to kill people on the nation's behalf (or contribute to the kill in an equally important way) you need to have a high moral standard to ensure that the taxpayers can trust you in this role.

I'd like to think that the guy pulling the trigger is a decent person who was making the right choice based not only on experience but on the basis that it was the "right" thing to do.

What's the standard for "right"? I don't really know... and that's probably why I have to take this course and managed to look like an idiot (again) on the internet. Your comment (and those from others) about differing moral standards isn't one I know how to answer.

 

[bunk22]

I'm just testing your thoughts Penn. I don't think there's a definite, right or wrong, answer here........IMO of course. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard because of what we represent. Our nation, our military, or service, etc. We often have to carry out orders away from home, in a harsh environment, while leading men and women. The average Joe wouldn't hold themselves to these higher standards. I could go on but the wife is calling :icon_rage

 

[feddoc]

I agree with A4s in that RHIP for many things...out a bit later on liberty, a bit longer on lunch breaks, etc.... A few years ago I was assigned to an echelon II command. A couple of senior enlisted folk were upset that the Admiral had 'allowed' his wife to accompany him on a C-12 when he went to a speaking engagement. What they did not realize was that the rules in place at the time allowed dependents to ride as space 'A'. Just so happens that he controlled the space 'A' list. Within the rules.....

While at this same command I was tasked with being the ASO. During a mishap investigation, a retired Master Chief (hired as a civilian maintenance worker) was caught acitvely doctoring maintenance records. He was canned within 30 minutes.


Two different situations, each involving a higher standard: one deals with RHIP while the other (I *think* this is the type of higher standard which mules83 is speaking of) involves integrity...or lack thereof.

 

[winger]

Military leadership is the last layer of bedrock morality in this country; as the popular tide ebbs and flows, the military has (and will) maintain a dedication to morality, acting as a high-water mark for the whole of society.

It is required that we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard- and not because we are better or different than the general population. We are the instruments of public policy. Just as an individual is defined by his actions, so too is a country defined by the decisions of those who carry out its endeavors.

I use the word "leadership" as opposed to officers. The actions of the fire team leader who stumbles upon the wounded enemy who just shot his buddy are truly the actions of the United States of America.

In my opinion, the future of this country is predicated upon the morality of the men and women in these sorts of positions... from the CEOs to the field-grades to the Corporal. That is why we hold ourselves to a high standard... because we swore to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Brett327]

I agree with A4s in that RHIP for many things...out a bit later on liberty, a bit longer on lunch breaks, etc.... A few years ago I was assigned to an echelon II command. A couple of senior enlisted folk were upset that the Admiral had 'allowed' his wife to accompany him on a C-12 when he went to a speaking engagement. What they did not realize was that the rules in place at the time allowed dependents to ride as space 'A'. Just so happens that he controlled the space 'A' list. Within the rules.....

While at this same command I was tasked with being the ASO. During a mishap investigation, a retired Master Chief (hired as a civilian maintenance worker) was caught acitvely doctoring maintenance records. He was canned within 30 minutes.


Two different situations, each involving a higher standard: one deals with RHIP while the other (I *think* this is the type of higher standard which mules83 is speaking of) involves integrity...or lack thereof.

Ditto.

Brett

 

[Catmando]

The course is called Leadership and Ethics. I am currently working on a paper and the subject is on "Should military officers be held to a higher moral standard?"

[Warning: Long answer follows]


First, do not confuse or intermix, "Leadership" with "Ethics". They are separate issues.

I have known some great leaders who were somewhat disappointing in the "Ethics" department, but still held my total allegiance, if not total respect.

Conversely, I have known some ethical straight arrows who were very poor leaders. . . but they also held my allegiance, if not my respect.

I have also known many others who possessed both good ethical standards and great leadership. They held both my allegiance and respect. They are the best, but they are a rare mix and breed.

The point is, although related, and often intertwined, the two issues of Leadership and Ethics are really separate. (And while my heart tells me ethics trumps leadership, my head tells me leadership trumps ethics.)

I can think of a number of historical figures who displayed strong leadership qualities, and built formidable, dedicated organizations, but were extremely unethical.

While ethical standards may not dictate one's leadership ability, it does stand to reason that if the particular ethical mores of a unique group are also reflected and shared with their leader, then that leader's ability to lead is certainly enhanced.

Witness criminal gangs … highly unethical, but nevertheless with some strong leaders. However, most of their rank-and-file subscribe to the same, unethical criminal behavior as their leaders, thereby enhancing their already strong leaders' ability to lead.

Now to the question of, "Should military officers be held to a higher moral standard?"

The answer to that is easy . . . if in relation to civilians.

Certainly, the Oath of Office an officer has sworn automatically holds him to a much higher standard than his civilian counterpart. Then there is the UCMJ, which holds all military to a higher standard. Then there are the security checks and background investigations for increased security clearances and special duties that demand an adherence to a "higher standard".

Also, do not discount peer pressure - your higher-than-standard-colleagues will hold you to a much higher standard than the average schmoe. Ours is an elite fraternity, and we do not suffer fools well. Then certainly, your CO is expecting performance to high standards, or you will soon seek other employment.

The selection process of an officer is based on standards – very high standards. If you are fortunate enough to be selected to serve your country in an elite status, it is because of certain high standards in the screening process you have already met - standards that the majority of people have not. You are special; therefore you must adhere to special high expectations. Those high standards got you in the door, but there are far greater standards expected later that you must attain and maintain, if your initial selection was valid.

However, if a higher standard than enlisted personnel was implied in the question, then it should be because of the officer's greater responsibility - but that may not be in reality. Both enlisted and officers do take an oath of office, are subject to the same UCMJ, and are investigated and evaluated for performance and adherence to certain high standards.

But there is a double standard – and I agree with A4s that RHIP (Rank Has Its Privileges). While some double standards are bad, some are natural and to be expected in the real world . . . as is RHIP. (Again, see A4s erudite comments)

In the ideal world, we all want perfect leaders, with impeccable ethics that perfectly match all the rank and file members of that group's perfect ethics and expectations. However in the real world, one can only hope for at best, a flawed but mostly balanced, better-than-most-mix of the three – the leader's specific ethics and his leadership, and the specific ethics and expectations of the group.

[Personally, although a stickler for morality, ethics, and standards, it is the MISSION that is still paramount. Lapses in ethical judgment – except in the most extreme of cases – should never impair the accomplishment of the stated mission. Drawing upon all your resources and your best judgment, you act as trained. Leave it to others who weren't there in the decision process or action to quibble ethics and morality; you are confident in yourself, your morality, and your decisions. If you've got the right stuff – and you should because of where you are, you're OK; if you don't, you're in the wrong business.]

In the final analysis, you as a leader draw from all your many resources – your training, your ethics, your intelligence, your experience, and your gut. You also draw from your men – their training, their ethics, their intelligence, their experience, and their support and fidelity in your stated objectives. While you hope all these are ideal, they never are.

But whatever, you are the man. Because of your talent and training, and your oath, a lot of people place their hope and faith in you. The high standards that you have met in the selection process have placed you in this unique position.

Therefore, you are expected to act accordingly to even greater, high standards. Nevertheless, you just do the best job with what you have – and your standard should be to do it not only to the best of your ability, but to a degree much more than expected by anyone – to a personal "higher standard" than anyone - including you - would ever expect.

Ironically and ideally, the very best of Higher Standards usually emanate from within the individual, and not from an arbitrary, outside source.


So the next tough question is: When ordered into harm's way, do you want to follow a leader whose weak suit is leadership, but is totally moral and ethical; or do you want to follow the strong leader who is morally corrupt?

[sorry for the length]

 

[Brett327]

^^My friends, your search is over. All the wisdom a young JO (or CO for that matter) requires is encapsulated in A4s' and Catmando's posts. Read and heed!

Brett

 

[raptor10]

The question of whether or not Military Officers should be held to a higher military standard than that of our civilian counterparts is a no and a yes. Ethically, a perfect society should only tolerate those that maintain a high standard, as those who deviate from the path negatively affect others to some extent. But the extent that immoral, unethical choices affect those around them is the main difference in what society chooses to allow to exist. The consequences of immoral decisions, are amplified by the technology around us. Its is the difference in allowing a known drunk driver in a toyota corolla to regain his license, and allowing a known drunk CO at the helm of the Exxon Valdez, Its the difference between engineers who are willing to run unauthorized tests and experiments at sony ericcson, and engineers who are willing to run unauthorized tests and experiments at Chernobyl. Concealing information about the latest tecnology may only affect the investors pockets, whereas concealing information that the reactor was dangerous in some conditions could lead to the death of some 4,000 individuals. The question of whether or not higher moral standards must be maintained is directly related to the consequences that could result from the lack of ethics. You cannot win wars without leadership and conversly you cant accomplish the mission and the intent and spirit of the Constitution that we have taken an oath to serve without ethics.

 

[Godspeed]

I would argue 'yes' military officers should be held to a higher standard, and for the simple reason that the public holds them to that standard.

For example... Take any civillian news story involving an officer; a hit and run, an assualt, theft, or anything positive on the contrary. If the man or woman involved in it is an officer, it is mentioned in the story; darn near every time. I believe it is mentioned because the public holds us to a higher standard. Negative acts reflect poorly on the military as a whole, not just the individual in question.

I was at a local club here in Daytona after a naval ball I went to with a lady midshipman friend of mine. What I saw as I exited the club disgusted me. A LT CDR (unrelated to the unit that held the ball) out in dress blues, completely drunk and disorderly. He was cursing, spitting, crying (literally), and making a complete ass out of himself. It was so oppaling that I forked out $30 of my own money to send him home in a cab.

Now this isn't 100% on cue with what you are talking about. We all know this is a major no no in the first place, but why should it be any different when the officer is in civies? If people know he/she is an officer, it still looks just as bad.

My .02