Ethics Of The Deontological School

Ethics Of The Deontological School Would Drive T

Question 1. Question : Ethics of the deontological school would drive the commanding officer (CO) to make what decision? To seek the best welfare for his sailor To take risks of courage To calculate the best possible outcome To ask what virtues he seeks to honor To do his duty under rules and procedures

Question 2. Question : For the CO to think about what is best for all indicates what kind of decision making? Ethical egoism Utilitarian ethics Care-based ethics An Aristotelian excess of the virtue The duty of the situation

Question 3. Question : If the CO's conscience was bothering him while making a decision, reading up on what ethicist would have made him aware of his thinking and deciding? Ayn Rand St. Anselm St. Thomas Aquinas John Locke John Stuart Mill

Question 4. Question : What virtue is not shown if the CO shows unwillingness to contact the carrier air group commander about the welfare of his sailor because of fear? Procrastination Selfishness The virtue of courage Wisdom Moderation

Question 5. Question : If the CO follows a principle that relates to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, what is the proper term of Kant's that should be used? Precept Decision Criterion Determination Maxim

Question 6. Question : When the CO wants to avoid doing "stupid things," what theory of ethics is he displaying? Plato's doctrine of civil responsibility Aristotle's doctrine of the mean Hobbes' state of nature Augustine's notion of sin Locke's idea of social contract

Question 7. Question : The CO's concern to maximize the best outcomes for ship and crew applies which school of ethics? Care-based school Virtue-based school Ends-based school Avoidance of extremes position Rules-based school

Question 8. Question : If the CO were to put concern for his personal reputation ahead of the needs of the injured sailor, what style of ethics would be operating? Deficiency of courage Kant's categorical imperative, second formulation Aquinas' concept of natural law ethics Ayn Rand's objectivism James' logical positivism

Question 9. Question : For the CO to consider what the crew as a whole would want for handling the situation involves what kind of ethics? Sphere of influence Utilitarian ethics Majority thinking The principle of equity Care-based ethics

Question 10. Question : If the CO were to take a care-based approach to this emergency situation, what would he do? He would try to sympathize with the sailor and feel his pain. He would try to figure out what he would want if he were the sailor and had suffered the injury. He would contact the injured sailor's family at home. He would follow the published instructions for this kind of emergency He would get the carrier air group commander to send the helicopter, even after dark.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the ethical frameworks guiding military decision-making, particularly in high-stakes situations involving personnel welfare, is crucial. The deontological school of ethics emphasizes duty, rules, and adherence to moral principles over consequentialist considerations. This paper explores how these principles influence a commanding officer's (CO) decision-making process, especially when faced with dilemmas involving the welfare of sailors under his command.

At the core of deontological ethics, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, is the concept that actions must be guided by moral duty and universalizable principles. When a CO makes decisions based on deontological ethics, he is driven by a sense of duty to uphold rules and moral obligations regardless of the potential outcomes. For example, the CO would prioritize his duty to do what is morally right, such as ensuring the safety of his sailors, even if it involves personal risk or difficult choices. Therefore, the primary decision in this ethical framework would be to do his duty under rules and procedures, as it aligns with Kant’s emphasis on duty and moral law (Kant, 1785).

Furthermore, ethical decision-making that considers the welfare of all aligns with utilitarian ethics, which seeks to maximize overall happiness. However, deontological ethics emphasizes adherence to moral duties and principles, rather than calculating outcomes. This distinction is essential because deontology regards actions like honesty, duty, and respect as intrinsically right, regardless of their consequences (Ross, 1930). For instance, a CO guided by deontological principles would refuse to compromise moral duties, even if doing so might result in less favorable outcomes for the majority, highlighting a commitment to moral integrity over utilitarian calculations.

When a CO's conscience causes internal conflict during decision-making, consulting an ethicist like Thomas Aquinas could provide moral clarity. Aquinas' natural law theory emphasizes that moral principles are rooted in human nature and divine law, guiding individuals to act morally in accordance with their true nature and inherent inclinations (Aquinas, 1274). Reading Aquinas helps the CO understand that moral conscience is an innate awareness of natural law, reinforcing his sense of duty and moral responsibility in difficult situations. This aligns with the deontological focus on acting according to moral principles derived from reason and natural law.

The virtue of courage is vital in military contexts, particularly when the CO faces fears impeding his duties. Virtue ethics, originating with Aristotle, stresses character and virtues like courage, wisdom, moderation, and justice. If the CO shows unwillingness to contact the carrier air group commander out of fear, he demonstrates a lack of courage. Virtue ethics posits that courage involves facing fears appropriately, especially in critical situations involving personnel welfare (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics). Conversely, other virtues like wisdom or moderation may guide the CO to act prudently, but lacking courage specifically undermines his ethical character in the deontological sense.

Kant’s categorical imperative, especially its first formulation, states that one should act only according to maxims that can be universalized. When the CO adopts a principle consistent with this formulation, he is acting based on a rational moral rule that he would want all others to follow. The proper Kantian term for this principle is 'maxim,' which guides moral action by establishing a universal moral law (Kant, 1785). This emphasizes the consistency and universality of moral duties, central to deontological ethics.

In decision-making, avoiding "stupid things" indicates adherence to ethical principles that promote sound judgment and rationality. Hobbes’ state of nature theory reflects a view where individuals act in self-preservation, often leading to chaos without social contracts and rules. However, in ethical terms, avoiding foolish acts aligns more with Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, which advocates moderation and prudence as virtues ensuring balanced and rational choices (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

The deontological approach also extends to the principle of maximizing the ship and crew's welfare within moral duties. This aligns with a school of ethics that emphasizes rules and duties—namely, rules-based ethics—where adherence to established moral principles guides decisions to ensure the well-being of the entire unit (Beckwith, 2008). It underscores that ethical actions are not solely outcome-driven but are rooted in moral responsibilities upheld regardless of consequences.

If the CO's concern for personal reputation overshadows the needs of the injured sailor, he is operating under an ethical style that prioritizes self-interest over moral duty. Ayn Rand’s objectivism emphasizes rational self-interest and individualism as moral virtues. In this context, placing personal reputation above duty reflects a self-centered ethic that neglects moral obligations to others (Rand, 1964). Such an approach is incompatible with deontological duty, which requires acting according to moral principles rather than personal gains.

Considering the collective wishes of the crew involves a concern for fairness and the equitable treatment of all personnel, aligning with the principle of the principle of equity. Utilitarian ethics may also come into play if the decision seeks to maximize ship-wide well-being. In this scenario, the ethical focus is on ensuring that the decision benefits the majority, connecting to utilitarian judgment and moral reasoning centered on the greater good (Mill, 1863).

Lastly, a care-based ethical approach emphasizes empathy, compassion, and relational considerations. If the CO adopts a care-based method, he would prioritize understanding the injured sailor’s feelings and situation, seeking to provide emotional support and to act out of genuine concern. This aligns with ethicists like Carol Gilligan, who highlight the importance of care ethics in professional and personal contexts (Gilligan, 1982). In practice, this would involve sympathizing with the sailor and acting to alleviate suffering in a compassionate manner, emphasizing human connection and responsibility.

In conclusion, the various ethical perspectives offer insight into the decision-making processes of military leaders. Deontological ethics firmly guides decisions rooted in duty and moral rules, emphasizing the importance of acting in accordance with intrinsic moral principles. Virtue ethics highlights character and courage, essential qualities for military leadership. Kantian principles ensure decisions can be universalized, supporting consistent moral conduct. Moreover, understanding care ethics and consequentialist considerations enriches the ethical landscape in commanding military personnel. Ultimately, integrating these perspectives fosters morally sound and responsible decisions that uphold the integrity of military operations and the welfare of personnel.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
• Beckwith, F. (2008). Ethics and the Military Profession. Journal of Military Ethics, 7(4), 273-290.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rand, A. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. Penguin.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
• Aristotle. (n.d.). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross.
• St. Thomas Aquinas. (1274). Summa Theologica. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
• Additional references can be included as needed to support specific points made in the paper.