Military service is perhaps the most difficult profession in the world because it calls upon its men and women to execute tasks that in some measure, involves death and destruction. Managing troops and subordinates in the military is unique as unlike a corporate entity, military leaders are required to manage their people to fight a war, suffer privations and give orders to kill other human beings.
In short, the noble profession of arms is an anathema to all teachings humane and at times produces ethical dilemmas which are not easy to resolve. This essay examines the ethics of military service against the backdrop of philosophical theories of Natural Law, Constitutional ethics, Utilitarianism, Relativism, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative with the aim of determining whether the actions of Kilo Company of the Marines in November 2005 in Haditha, Iraq were ethically correct or otherwise.
A war zone is unlike any other environment that a human being can be exposed to. In a war zone, uncertainty, lack of information and the near certainty of death are omnipresent. Under these circumstances, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain rationality.
Rational behavior in a war zone is ensured by rigorous training and adherence to Standard Operating Procedures as also by unquestioning obedience. All these ingredients can come rapidly unstuck once a firefight develops and the ability of the troops to maintain fighting efficiency and rationality depends on the dynamic situation which no amount of training can predict or control. In November of 2005, Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines were involved in an incident in Haditha, Iraq, after a roadside bomb struck their convoy.
In response, the soldiers went on a three-hour shooting spree in which they shot five passengers of an approaching taxi and killed 10 women and children at point blank range. A subsequent investigation by Time magazine showed that most of the dead were killed as the Marines swept through the houses near the bombing (McGirk 2). Out of the eight marines charged, only one has been recommended to be tried for negligent homicide and not murder.
Natural law is essentially a law whose contents are set by nature. By extension, many philosophers and theorists extend the meaning of natural law to natural justice and natural rights. A natural law in its pristine state is a just law. These, in the context of every human, translate into a right to life and by that extension into a right to retaliate in self defense. This interpretation of natural law has been codified into domestic laws as well as International Law and Laws of Armed Conflict. Thus ‘anticipatory self defense’ is a valid precept if there are sufficient grounds to prove that by not acting in accordance with offensive action would have resulted in grievous harm to own self or the troops under command. The rider, as always is that this interpretation has to be Just.
Constitutional ethics are nothing but ethical conduct and practices ensured by the Constitution of a country in ensuring the rights of its people. The 14th amendment to the US constitution states that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Archives and Beschloss 107). Constitutional ethics feed into military ethics and here too the same principles of justness, fairness apply. Thus that fact that a state must not deprive any person of life and liberty has to be understood in equal measure by those involved in war craft and that their license to do just the opposite that is deprive someone of life and liberty is not limitless and in the philosophical sense, is contrary to the principles held by the state. Therefore, it follows that the right to self defense and anticipatory self defense as derived from natural law has to be exercised keeping in view the constitutional ethics that govern the conduct of humans in times of peace and war. However, the military is also governed by a ‘Hierarchy of Loyalties’ which consists of six loyalties: Constitution, Mission, Service, Ship or Command, Shipmate, and Self in the descending order of priority. Sometimes, this hierarchy gets easily forgotten in the heat of the moment, the rush of emotions and the fog of war leading to disastrous consequences as had happened to the subordinates of Kilo Company who chose to follow the fourth and the fifth ranking hierarchy forgetting the allegiance to the first three.
The concept of Utilitarianism attributed to John Stuart Mill as being based on the principle that “Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number” (Jenkins 87) is by far the most misunderstood precept. Taken literally, this principle means that slaughter in the name of ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ is justified. Mills had however qualified his thesis when he stated that the ‘Greatest Happiness’ principle is predicated on “the end of human action, (which) is necessarily also the standard of morality, which may accordingly be defined” (Mill 10).
Actually the essence of Mill’s concept is succinctly captured in his statement that “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 6). This formulation is not very different from the credo of military ethics that are taught in military institutions the world over namely, the primacy of morals and the concept of proportionality.
It was the further extension of utilitarianism which was modified and found its way into the laws of armed conflict which deals with the issue of proportionality of force when prosecuting operations. However, morality means different things to different people and some hold that such values are relative depending upon the existing circumstances.
This purported relativity of values has been variously theorized as moral relativism that holds that there are no universal ethical standards to assess an ethical assertion’s truth. In other words, what might be right for one society may not be right for another society or culture. The oft heard saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ very aptly encapsulates the concept of relativism as germane to the military. Practitioners of relativism include Machiavelli for whom the ‘ends justified the means’.
However, there are meta-ethical relativists who hold that moral conduct is consequent to one own moral standards and there is a need ‘to follow one’s own conscience’. This truism, to follow one’s own conscience is yet another philosophical aphorism that has been codified as a law in all militaries the world over in that when faced with a unlawful order, the subordinate can represent orally and refuse to obey such an order later reporting the incident in writing.
Preceding all the ethical theories enumerated so far, the one that carries great significance for the development of military ethics are the writings of Immanuel Kant who argues the case for morality to have certain apriori basis defined by his concept of ‘Categorical Imperative’ that simply put is nothing but standard of rationality from which all moral requirement are derived. To further explain his theory of the Categorical Imperative, Kant uses the tool of maxims which can be defined as a rule followed in any deliberate intentional act.
Kant’s first maxim “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant 43)”, emphasizes the case for moral acts to be based on pure practical reason and the need for universality of application and acceptance of such acts. Thus rationality of thought and action become the standpoint from which every human being should operate from irrespective of the situation or the condition. That such a truism exists in every ethical code of militaries is a known fact.
The development of the argument so far, from every standpoint, concludes that the actions of the Marines at Haditha were wrong and against the moral code of conduct. That the natural law and its development allows retaliation in self defense, it also requires retaliation based on proportionality and rationality. By no stretch of logic can killing of women and children and innocent civilians be justified under the ethical code though the legalistic connotation may be different as the processes of law do not necessarily reflect morality. The orders given by those in command at Haditha to open fire were wrong from every standpoint be it utilitarianism or Kantian rationality.
The subordinates who obeyed were also in the wrong as they forgot the precedence of Constitutional ethics and the hierarchy of loyalties as also the voice of their own conscience. The actions of Kilo company at Haditha could have been different had they adhered to the military code of ethics, but then they were just ordinary soldiers being led by equally inexperienced officers who probably had never heard or learnt about Natural Law, Constitutional ethics, John Stuart Mill, Relativism and Kantian rationality as has been expounded by the author of this essay in hindsight, in relative comfort and in no danger of losing his own life.
Works Cited
National Archives, and Michael (FRW) Beschloss. Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives. NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Jenkins, Joe. Ethics and Religion. Oxford: Heinemann, 2003.
Kant, Immanuel, Ellington James W. Grounding For the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd edn. Hackett, 1785, 1993.
McGirk, Tim. “Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha.” 2006. Time online. Web.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.