Running head: MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

An Application of the Principled Decision Maker:

Morality and Military Decision Making
Matthew T. Erdley
Azusa Pacific University

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

An Application of the Principled Decision Maker:

Morality and Military Decision Making
The program competency of Principled Decision Making is of unsurpassed
importance when applied in a military context. In recent years the public has been exposed to
a number of incidents involving professional misconduct in the military that underscore the
importance of moral and ethical considerations in decision making. Such occurrences include
the case of former 1st Lieutenant Clint Lorance, and the Haditha killings. In each of these
examples, individuals in leadership were forced to differentiate between hostile and nonhostile actors in an uncertain operating environment where enemy and civilian often are
indistinguishable prior to engagement, and in each case their response was found wanting. As
a consequence, ethical decision making and training in the military has come to the forefront
of both the public and military conscience.
The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) says in their
Pamphlet 525-3-7-01 that:
Soldiers must be able to recognize the moral implications in a given situation, reason
through the situation to form a moral judgment, develop the intent to act, and finally,
summon the courage and conviction to carry through with the intended behavior (p.
69)
This statement seems to make two implications. The first is that soldiers must be
trained and equipped properly to make ethical decisions. The second is that the decision
making process must be intentional and deliberate. This, however, precludes immediate and
intuitive reaction to developing situations in an operating environment that is increasingly
complex, demanding immediate reaction for success. While many of the articles referenced
include information on the relative merits and importance of the two types, this research does

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

not suggest that either of these prevailing viewpoints are more correct than the other. Instead,
it treats the first implication more thoroughly.
In a discussion of the research, the first question considered was this: how can the
capacity for moral and ethical decision making be improved? The first section will review
the current research on training programs and how they have demonstrated success in
teaching or influencing moral decision making. It will also consider ways to improve that
education. The second question is concerned with a more fundamental idea, that of the
context in which decisions are made and their mechanisms. As a part of that, research is
presented that highlights the unique nature of military decision making, and whether ethical
decision in that context can be researched and treated as similar to that in other contexts.
Training and Improving Decision Making Capacity
Since the Gulf War, military operations have increasingly encountered opponents who
do not fit the traditional mold. These emerging enemies engage largely in what is termed
asymmetrical warfare, defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as warfare that is
between opposing forces which differ greatly in military power and that typically involves
the use of unconventional weapons and tactics (such as those associated with guerrilla
warfare and terrorist attacks). In addition, insurgents are often indistinguishable from the
civilian populace; these fighters do not wear uniforms, they operate from within the civilian
communities, and they intentionally act in a manner that is contrary to the Western ethic
(Thompson & Jetly, 2014, p. 1).. The potential ethical challenges for US military members
operating in these regions are apparent.
Unfortunately, the military has been slow to adapt. Ethical training modules are still
largely based around PowerPoint presentations and established Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Castro and McGurk (2007) found in a study of Marines and Soldiers who had been actively
deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), approximately 80% reported receiving

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

adequate training about clear ethical behavior towards non-combatants. However, of those
same groups, nearly 30% responded that they encountered situations for which they had not
been prepared. Most telling was the response to the question of whether all non-combatants
should be treated with dignity and respect: less than half of Marines and Soldiers agreed. It is
clear that the ethical training available at that point was not sufficient.
In order to maximize training and have it be lasting and productive for the individuals
involved, several researchers have discussed the idea of context and content. In their
literature review, Thompson and Jetly (2014) conclude that ethical training content must be
carefully designed and embedded into high-intensity operational training settings .
Arranging for specific aspect of moral decision making to be present in a high stress training
environment makes the learning points more salient for soldiers, and ensures that they are
afforded to opportunity to practice decision-making in an environment similar to that they
might face overseas. Additionally, integrating detailed moral decision making dilemmas into
regular training increases exposure and practice, producing well-rehearsed moral behavior.
Another study involving members of the Swiss armed forces produced a similar
conclusion regarding the importance of context and personal salience in ethical training
scenarios. Seiler, Fischer, and Voegtli (2011) developed testing and training tools that they
would apply to a test group of Swiss captains and majors in order to measure training
effectiveness. Their goal was to develop a training program that would aid in the
development of moral perception (the ability to perceive a moral conflict), moral
reasoning/emotional-intuitive processes, and social interaction. Officers were given several
case studies, to which they were instructed to intuitively react. They then were asked to
reflect on their reaction and develop alternative reactions based on reasoning. Finally, they
came together in a group and discussed their alternatives, deciding collectively on the most
ideal. The researchers anchored ethical learning in the students context by two primary

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

means. The case studies were chosen to reflect situations the officers could or would
experience and the peer discussion setting tied ethical discussion and decision-making to their
social context. The conclusion they present is especially compelling:
...the moral dimension in military decision making has to be systematically
integrated in tactical and operational decision making in military training exercises.
Otherwise, moral aspects could be seen as not relevant or not directly related to
military operations and left aside during problem-solving and decision-making
processes (p. 465)
More research offers another perspective, one that focused on several different models
of moral education. Extrapolating from his study with Cadets in Taiwanese military
academies, Yu (2013) suggests that in moral education, a focus on improving curriculum and
teaching ability should not render unimportant the external learning environments and role
models (p. 356) His work quantitatively demonstrated the impact that learning by example
has on students, in comparison with one-way teaching.
Military Specific Ethics and Decision Making
When knowledge of military misconduct enters into the public domain, there is often
a tremendous amount of backlash. Behaviors and individuals are quickly labelled immoral or
unethical. However, the judgments that a military member may be asked to make, and make
quickly without sufficient information, are often terribly difficult. The choices they make in
seemingly impossible situations will have ramifications for themselves, their units, and the
United States.
This difficulty in decision making is highlighted in a 2013 study by Blais and
Thompson, in which they presented civilian subjects with a pair of real-world military
dilemmas and had them evaluate the moral intensity of the dilemmas as well as make a
decision as to what course of action was best, given a choice of two courses. In the first

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

scenario, respondents were split equally between the two courses of action. The second was
only slightly more polarizing, with 60% of respondents choosing one option. Given
sufficient, relevant information, the civilian respondents did not produce an overwhelming
majority for one answer or another. Despite clear moral intensity in the situation, the
appropriate course of action was not clear.
Other studies discuss another intersection between civilian expectation and military
reality. When considering ethical decision making, it is usually agreed that reflection and
consideration of possible moral concerns is desirable. For much of life, this is an acceptable
method. However, wartime operations on a small unit or individual level are often
characterized by circumstances demanding immediate response in spite of chaos, uncertainty,
and lack of information. Nineteenth century military philosopher Carl Clausewitz describes
this very demand of wartime in his book On War, then adds, [T]he concept [of the genius]
merely refers to the quick recognition of a truth that the mind would ordinarily miss or would
perceive only after long study and reflection (as cited in Erikson, 2010, p.197). It is this
idea of the military genius and his or her utilization of intuitive decision-making that
Erikson (2010) discusses in his research. In order to do so, he analyzes military operations
and moral expert behavior in the context of the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. His
conclusion is this: intuitive action may be a legitimate foundation for moral behavior,
provided certain conditions are met (p. 212). One of these conditions is relevant experience.
A soldier must possess and significant quantity of experience acting appropriately to the
situation in question to be trusted to intuitively act morally. A second condition is that the
soldier act in a situation that is sufficiently familiar or known; his expertness is nullified if his
internalized understanding does not have experience with the new situation.
Another different work by George Levinger (2005) also demonstrates the difficulty in
harmonizing civilian expectations of moral military conduct; his work discusses the issue in

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

the specific context of air-delivered attacks against a land target. He suggests five obstacles
facing military ethics: historical context, organizational context, weaponry/method-ofdelivery context, non-distinctiveness context , and psychological context. The confluence of
these factors, he asserts, limits the power of lower-level commanders and their subordinates
to minimize loss of life and maximize ethically made decisions. While not mentioned
explicitly, his work touches on the idea of utilitarianism, a concept discussed at great length
in a 2011 article by Peter Oslthoorn. In his work, he outlines for a reader the principle of
double effect, which states that actions with undesirable or immoral consequence are
permissible should four conditions be met. The first is that the act is not bad in itself, with
bombing of residential areas given as an example. The second is that the direct effect is good
and the unintended effect is not a means to an end. The third is that the intention is good.
Finally, the fourth is that the intended good effects outweigh the unintended bad effects, that
the chosen means are proportional (p. 83). Olsthoorn then continues at length discussing in
great depth various moral philosophies and their suitability for the military. However, his
conclusion is that the military cannot do without this principle of double effect, albeit with
warnings concerning the leniency of the third condition; intention is easily directed and
spoken, and often is focused on the agent, not the receiver of outcome (p. 88).

Discussion
The body of research collected suggests that there is a distinct gap between the moral
decision-making ability demanded of military members in combat situations and what they
are being trained to do. Developing training scenarios that are realistic and mimic the
stressors of a combat environment will allow for relevant practice and development. This
entails ensuring that the training environment is designed to be identical to the operating
environment, and that moral judgment dilemmas are grounded in the context of the operation

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

and undertaken as a social unit. Additionally, that social unit must be committed to
demonstrating appropriate ethical and moral behavior at all levels.
It is also essential to realize that unique nature of moral decision making in a military
context demands that it be undertaken in a different fashion than such decision making in a
civilian context. The nature of war and the job of a soldier necessitates the adoption of some
form of utilitarianism in the form of the aforementioned double-effect principle, particularly
as soldiers are reacting intuitively to rapidly developing situations. Perhaps the real challenge
is not simply training individuals to make better decisions, but ensuring that the media, the
populace, the government, and the support networks in place understand the enormity of the
decisions being made on a personal moral level. In this way, soldiers are held accountable for
growth and development but not unduly chastened for actions in response to immediate and
ambiguous concerns.

MORALITY AND MILITARY DECISION MAKING

References
Blais, A., & Thompson, M. M. (2013). What would I do? Civilians' ethical decision making
in response to military dilemmas. Ethics & Behavior, 23(3), 237-249.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.748634
Castro, C. A., & McGurk, D. (2007). Battlefield ethics. Traumatology, 13(4), 24-31.
doi:10.1177/1534765607309951
Eriksen, J. W. (2010). Should soldiers think before they shoot?. Journal Of Military Ethics,
9(3), 195-218. doi:10.1080/15027570.2010.510861
Levinger, G. (2005). Five obstacles facing military ethics. Peace And Conflict: Journal Of
Peace Psychology, 11(1), 41-46. doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1101_4
Olsthoorn, P. (2011). Intentions and consequences in military ethics. Journal Of Military
Ethics, 10(2), 81-93. doi:10.1080/15027570.2011.593711
Seiler, S., Fischer, A., & Voegtli, S. A. (2011). Developing moral decision-making
competence: a quasi-experimental intervention study in the swiss armed forces.
Ethics & Behavior, 21(6), 452-470. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.622177
Thompson, M. M., & Jetly, R. (2014). Battlefield ethics training: integrating ethical scenarios
in high-intensity military field exercises. European Journal Of Psychotraumatology,
51-10. doi:10.3402/ejpt.v5.23668
Yu, Y. (2013). Between an example and a precept, which has greater importance? A
comparison of the channels of socialization in military ethics. Ethics & Behavior,
23(5), 341-359. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.784195