The scenarios in the "Backpacker" and "Fat Man" exercises involve grave consequences that represent the height of ethical decision-making: choosing who lives and who dies. No other profession expects its members to lay down their lives for their friends, families, or freedoms; but it is what our profession readily expects. As members of the Profession of Arms, this may very well be the stakes you face when making ethical decisions. However, these scenarios can be represented in many different situations in which ethical decisions are being made, to include life or death. Consider the ethical implications in the following examples (many of which you may have experienced).
Sacrificing the needs of most of your subordinates to fulfill to the needs of one or a few of your subordinates (and vice versa)
Deciding how to allocate and distribute resources when there aren’t enough for everyone
Choosing who to submit for awards and favorable EPR ratings when there is legitimate controversy among the eligible
Dealing with underperforming peers, superiors, or subordinates who are “friends” (personal-professional value conflict)
Dealing with high performing peers, superiors, or subordinates who are “friends” (personal-professional value conflict
Using the predicted end result to justify the means for achieving it
Justifying rule-breaking through lying, cheating, and stealing
Applying values only as they are written OR interpreting values and shaping them to fit the situation
Or any other ethical decision-making example not listed
As a group, discuss a few of these examples that you have experienced or witnessed and examine the ethical implications. Use the following questions to guide your group discussion and be prepared to share your answers with the class.
Were the actions and decisions morally justifiable based on the values and standards of the Profession of Arms?
What was the impact?
What were some other options for handling the situation?
What, if anything, would you have done differently? Why?