Military leaders may find themselves in questionable situations: perceived as unethical; lack moral consciousness, or question their character. Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated moral courage by leveraging the ethical principles of duty, loyalty and subordination in endorsing the French Vichy leader Admiral Darlan. This essay will evaluate Eisenhower’s moral judgement and ethical decision-making using three (of seven) ethical principles author Don Snider contends are applicable to all Army professionals. After evaluating Eisenhower’s integration of duty, loyalty and subordination, this analysis concludes that Eisenhower used appropriate ethical and moral judgement in his decision authorized the deal as Allied Commander. The first principle
to examine is duty. Regarding Eisenhower’s decision with Darlan, the general recognized the primary priority concerned the welfare of Soldiers and the second dealt with the mission of seizing Tunisia. This distinction reflected the basic principle of duty… to country, mission and welfare of Solders. Eisenhower’s duty was to obey a direct order; save lives, and; accomplish the mission. Essential to this was finding a means to stop the casualties and seize Tunisia ahead of the Germans. On November 10, Eisenhower’s sole inducement to deal with Darlan were for practical reasons- not political. For example, he viewed Darlan entirely from a Soldier’s perspective, as embodied by the declaration that “This guy can stop the fighting and nobody else can. The subsequent deal generated a cease-fire, saved Soldiers’ lives and provided US troop’s crucial access. The next principle is loyalty. Eisenhower demonstrated loyalty to his superiors, the country and allied forces by following President Roosevelt’s order. Eisenhower’s order was to use whatever means necessary to resolve the French problem. Loyalty is simply adherence to the lawful orders of our elected and appointed leaders. It extends upward through the chain of command to the Commander-in-Chief and downward to subordinates. It applies to all, as does the last principle of subordination, with which Eisenhower did not do so well. To elaborate, Eisenhower interfered with civilian authority policies and thus showed poor moral judgment, despite its necessity to mission accomplishment. It is critical for military leaders to understand the Constitutional purpose and functionality of each branch of government as well as the military professional’s obligations and responsibilities. Civilian control of the military means the statesman takes the broader view determines when political considerations take precedence over even the most pressing military matters. A key example is the agreement to appoint Admiral Darlan commander of all French troops- a decision only the French government could approve and US civilian authorities could endorse. In a massive undertaking, General Eisenhower faced many ethical challenges that required him to make difficult decisions that questioned his ethics. His decision to endorse Admiral Darlan reflected a commitment to duty and loyalty, yet also showed resistance to the principle of subordination. Taking into consideration, how he fared with these ethical principles, it is feasible to conclude that in the Admiral Darlan situation, General Eisenhower exercised less-than-desirable moral judgment
As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, General Eisenhower was the leader in charge of planning Operation Overlord or D-Day (Ambrose, 1983). This was a complex, large-scale operation that put many lives on the line. Sending thousands of military forces to storm the beaches of Normandy and face death was not an easy task. Operation Overlord was successful, and its success gained Eisenhower fame. Eisenhower used risk management on a high level to plan the operation. At the same time, Eisenhower was an empathetic leader who understood the emotional
For a speech to contain ethos, an established credibility and ethical appeal must be portrayed by the speaker. The portrayal of ethics is an essential element to a speaker’s relatability and helps to better establish a connection with the audience. In the Atoms for Peace speech, Eisenhower successfully portrayed the ethical appeal of ethos. This was not a seemingly difficult task for Eisenhower to maneuver, with the topics of discussion having been atomic warfare and the wellbeing of mankind, two topics that are in blatant relation to ethical values. Eisenhower used these topics of discussion to express his ethical code to the audience in which he motioned to have been in favor of all progressions of mankind so long as those advancements were of pacifistic assessments. The second part of ethos is credibility. This aspect of ethos is significant because a speaker’s credibility affects the audience’s response to the speaker. Eisenhower’s credibility concerning the topics of discussion within Atoms for Peace originated from his extensive military background in initiating psychological warfare negotiations. 12 Within the Atoms for Peace, Eisenhower skillfully portrayed egos throughout the
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Take Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, for example. Although he had no desire to be in Vietnam, not to mention be leading troops there, it is evident that he is selfless in the pursuit of the war, and genuinely concerned about the welfare of his men. Unfortunately, he is blinded by guilt to these qualities.
For a united nation to prosper, its people must overcome obstacles and take on numerous responsibilities. Throughout our lives, there are problems occurring continually in our world related to war and combat. During these times of hardship, we must remind ourselves to persevere and continue to defend the country. In addressing the Sylvanus Thayer Award on May 12, 1962, at the city of West Point, New York, General Douglas MacArthur urged Americans to remember the major responsibilities we have as Americans in his speech Duty, Honor, Country. With a position of authority, MacArthur powerfully stated that America will only survive through winning wars and fulfilling our duties. His main priority was to defend the nation, respect the nation, and prosper in that vast nation, otherwise remarked as three key terms: duty, honor, and country. Through the use of rhetorical devices, MacArthur expresses the theme that Americans should defend the country sturdily and carry on its numerous objectives by means of his moral code: “Duty, Honor, Country”.
Professional Military Education schools teach the Army Ethic and evaluation reports for leaders affirm this ethic. The Army punishes individuals, especially leaders, who violate this code. The Army administratively punishes Soldiers who do not adhere to this code, and the severity of punishment increases with rank. One recent and highly visible example of this is former General Petraeus’s adultery and the subsequent professional sanctions he experienced. The Army grows its own ethical code and maintains it through the American people.
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
LM01, Ethical Leadership Student Guide. (2012). Maxwell-Gunter AFB. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC).
Davenport’s various violations of the Code need to be considered from another point of view as an example of responsible disobedience. As Dr. Davenport and Antwone are both members of the military, there is a certain camaraderie experienced between them that the general public does not experience. Taking this into consideration, Dr. Davenport may be expressing responsible disobedience as he violates various standards in the Code in an attempt to respect the intricacies of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007). Because the military is a culture of its own, it is difficult to say whether any or all of the situations that resulted in an ethical violation were justified. It is easy to say that Dr. Davenport violated principle ethics during his work with Antwone but virtue ethics may support Dr. Davenport as he interpreted the standards in the context of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007).
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
All soldiers, especially leaders, are highly recommended to keep a certain set of values that radiate throughout the entire U.S. Army. They are challenged to keep them near and dear to their hearts and to define and live them every day. A leader is one who takes these challenges serious and abides by
Many individuals in our military today have this notion that just because they earned their “stripes” that they automatically deserve respect, and that their subordinates should and will listen to them strictly because of what is on their chest. A true leader not only leads, develops, and mentors, but they embody and apply those leader competencies in their everyday life both on and off duty. Being a leader doesn’t mean you always have to be the mean guy. It means that you can successfully provide purpose, direction and motivation to make your Soldiers want to work for you to accomplish the mission. In this paper, I will discuss and give examples about the difference between Competent Leadership
Elie Wiesel was one of the survivor and he do not want people to forget the sacrifice rescuers did to save people life in the Holocaust. He wants us to appreciate that those people could’ve choose to not help, but they did a correct moral choice. Humanity is the ability to love and have compassion, be creative, and not be a robot or alien. The human nature is kindness, as humans we suppose to help each other but not everyone does. That’s why Elie Wiesel says we have to give importance to the rescuers. Humanity also means the kinds of feelings human have to each other and those feelings are the ones that encourage us to do good things for others. A person that has influenced me my thinking about ethical decision making is Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was born in 1910 in the
I have had the opportunity and privilege to work with a variety of military and non-military leaders who taught me important lessons in leadership. I obtained these lessons through direct mentorship or observation as I watched how they conducted themselves. Those lessons, combined with my own personal beliefs and experiences, have helped me develop my own leadership philosophy. My leadership philosophy focuses on balancing mission accomplishment with Soldier welfare. As a leader, I place significant emphasis on creating an environment built on trust and mutual respect, personal and professional development, and Soldier welfare.