Rev. Dr. Daniel M. Bell, Jr — CGSC Ethics Chair & Professor of Theology and Ethics at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina – spoke this morning (Tuesday, 11 Dec.) about the importance of the study of ethics. His topics of subjectivism and emotivism provide insight on how young people in our society and the Servicemen and Women of today view morality and how they make their decisions. It is important for us as field grade officers and leaders to understand how those that we will lead think.
This is important because it will enable us to determine the best way to give orders and instill beliefs within our unit to ensure compliance and commitment. As a field grade officer we do not have to change our moral philosophy but must understand why those that we lead may not agree with what we believe and potentially ways to make them understand why we believe what we do.
– MAJ Joseph R. Inge, CGSOC, SG 9A
13 Comments on "Dr. Daniel Bell Leads Ethics Discussion"
I enjoyed Dr Bell’s lecture on emotivism versus subjectivism and found his insights were keen yet missed the boat on one main issue. Specifically, his discussion on how young troops see the world. His lecture spoke of how the youngest military generation perceives the world and of a belief that they have a different moral belief than older generations. This moral decay creates soldiers who are basically more emotivist and struggle to recognize wrong versus right when presented with emotional events. Many believe this moral decay is due to a lesser religious influence in modern America. I tend to agree with “unkblogger72” that moral character is largely built/reliant on the environment that an individual is raised. If a troop is raised to respect others, nature, and when shown what right versus wrong looks like they tend to possess a strong moral character thus being by nature more subjectivist. Instead, the largest issue confronting the younger military generation is accepting responsibility. When confronted with failure (whether personal or unit failure), the youngest troops tend to shy away from accepting the responsibility, even when it is clear they played a role in that failure. This poses a unique challenge for the military as it relies on professional soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to execute in a decentralized environment where confidence can only be gained through failure and experiences. The military must allow these young leaders/troops to fail and hold them accountable, yet do not crucify them for mistakes! This will breed leaders who are not afraid to fail, while emboldening them to try new things within their moral nature of what is right versus wrong.
- MAJ Jason M. Zemler, CGSOC, SG 14A
America has for decades placed special trust and confidence in its military which obligates its members to hold themselves to standards that in times are Herculean. Our roles models include Washington, Sherman, MacArthur, Patton, Ridgeway, Eisenhower, Moore, Schwarzkopf, Powell, and Petraeus have guided the Army through some of the most challenging human conflicts yet they remain men, complete with human failings which temper there abilities. All men were famous leaders in and out of the military especially when considering Washington and Eisenhower as they ascended to the pinnacle of American leadership as President and Commander in Chief. However, as these men remind us of the power and influence they commanded, recent events embroiled Petraeus, Sinclair, McChrystal, and others during the last decade of war. Leaders are expected to demonstrate character values commensurate with the oath sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States and its implied obedience to the laws of the land. Sadly, recent history has shown where our senior leaders have violated the law for their own selfish reasons. The conviction COL James Johnson of fraud, bigamy, and conduct unbecoming chipped away at the foundation of trust and the list of crimes he was convicted of calls into question senior officer selection processes. The recent incident involving Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, the former deputy-commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division has also continued to erode trust between the military and American society. The criminal case aside, the alleged activities have been decided in the court of public opinion and we as a military are guilty as charged and will endure decades of scrutiny in order to rise above the reproach of the egregious activities. Combined, the activities of these senior officers and those of other junior officers and non-commissioned officers work counter to the faith and confidence American Society places on its military leaders. American Society is forgiving in the long term and willing to accept failure so long as it is accompanied with magnanimous humility. Positive examples provided by leaders of clear moral character will, in time, remind American Society to trust and provide its treasure to once again defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bare true faith and allegiance to the same.
Dr. Bell provided some insightful comments during his lecture. However, as far as morality and ethics with young people are concerned, our society is desperately bipolar. First, I’d like to begin with defining the words ethic and morality. As taken from the dictionary, ethics are the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. Morality is defined as pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Essentially, ethics deals with the norms and customs of a particular group or culture. Morals are principles of objective right and wrong. What may be ethically right in America may be deemed ethically wrong in China. Morality, however, deals with principles that can be defined as objectively right or objectively wrong regardless of group or culture. The problem with our society is that we are sending our young people a mixed message. On the one hand, we publicly decry the atrocities that occur in other countries around the world such as mass genocide, corrupt governments and power hungry dictators. As a society, we will even publicly shame someone unlucky enough to get caught breaking the “rules”. Our society publicly champions a stance on objective moral principles. We even try to export our morality through democracy to other countries. However, a different message is being sent by our entertainment. Our music and movies constantly pump the message of moral relativism. Essentially, if it feels good and you want to do it, you should and can. Sure, there are exceptions, but the overall message is what our young people hear. Futhermore, the message of individual freedom and the right to do what you want is trumpeted without consideration for the long term consequences of actions and their effects on others. I won’t discuss specifics for the sake of brevity, but consider the debates of free speech, censorship or even social security. However, as mentioned by some above, the deeper issue is the disintegrationof the basic foundation for a young person’s moral development: the family. The family is where a child learns right from wrong and gains the foundations for moral behavior. Children increasingly see their parents divorce for any reason imaginable. Irreconcilable differences are acceptable reasosn for breaking a fundamental vow and foundation of society. I am not saying that divorce is wrong. However, in the formative years of a child’s life, safety and security are vital to the overall development of a child. Divorce is devastating to this development. Children see a parent leave perhaps because it is easier to do so than working through any problems or differences. Young people learn early on that it is ok to ignore responsiblity if it is too hard. I will echo the comments of bloggers above, a child can definitely learn right from wrong in this situation. I pose that it is more difficult to do so when the basic foundation of a child’s life is ripped from them. With all this being said, families and society produce the moral foundations upon which people build their moral code. As an institution, I doubt the Army can instill an objective foundation of right and wrong into a person. The morality of a person has already been determined and is a reflection of the society. At best, we can instill an ethic in our soldiers by which to operate. Referencing the definition of ethics laid down at the beginning of the blog, leaders can strive to create and teach a set of behaviors by which our soldiers adhere to to be successful in the Army. However, undoing 18+ years of moral teaching from society, I believe, is a bridge too far.
In E201C the NY Times article by David Brooks, “If it Feels Right” discusses the book Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood by Christian Smith and his collaborators. The book is about a study which draws on 230 in-depth interviews with a broad cross-section of emerging adults (ages 18-23). Smith and his team found that young people today fail to think about right and wrong and struggle comprehending moral dilemmas. Smith and his team state that there are “five major problems facing very many young people today: confused moral reasoning, routine intoxication, materialistic life goals, regrettable sexual experiences, and disengagement from civic and political life.” However, Smith argues that young people today have inherited a culture that has caused young people to behave this way from older adults. As young people enter the military today, we must recognize that our young service members may need our help when faced with moral dilemmas.
In the book by James Davison Hunter; The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age without Good or Evil. He states that in the 19th century the word character was once associated with virtues such as honor and integrity. In modern times the word character is now associated with “personality”. In a time when hyper- individualism drives morality to relativism, I believe it’s time to instill virtues in the character of our young people.
LCDR Hart SG15b
During Dr. Bell’s presentation on ‘The Relevance of the Just War Tradition for Warriors’, he concluded that one reason JWT matters is because “it can contribute to Soldiers’ resiliency.” I agree. The ongoing conflict in the Middle-East highlights the Army’s need for resilient Soldiers. Specifically, persisted conflict has resulted in Soldiers who have deployed multiple times, without seeing a decisive outcome; who might have sacrificed a lot, but see very little in return; and who continue to face an adversary with unwavering motivation that thrives on every casualty or setback inflicted on U.S. forces and its allies. While it might be ideological to believe that everyone in the military serves out of their own sense of patriotism and self-less commitment to the nation, the motivation for Soldiers to serve might derive from a different source (e.g. financial stability, school and medical benefits, pressure from family, etc.). Regardless of their motivation, by signing on the dotted line the individual commits him or herself to executing military decisions made by our senior government officials. If these leaders pursue an act of war, JWT defines the six requirements which must be met to justify the act—(1) just cause, (2) right intention, (3) public declaration by proper authority, (4) last resort, (5) probability of success, and (6) proportionality. If the Soldier agrees with these parameters, and believes the war has met the intent of JWT; these principles can help to reconcile a moral dilemma—whether it is justified for him or her to support the military effort. Consequently, the individual Soldier’s stress-coping mechanisms and capacity to prevail over adverse external conditions will be enhanced, thus contributing to his or her resiliency.
MAJ Wally Vives-Ocasio
SG 9C
Dr. Bells lecture provided us with some good insight on how a very small sample of American youths can have a misconception about Morality. I agree with much of the previous posts on this tread that Dr. Bell did a decent job with enlightening us on this particular survey and how it fits in the subject of Emotivisim and Subjectivism. I thought his presentation was interesting and educating. However, I agree with MAJ Bailey that we must be cautious when one puts a lot of weight onto a small sample of statistics and surveys. I disagree with crobgs300 that this presentation was an accurate reflection of today’s American youth. There are over 300 million people in the United States and territories. With this sampling of 230, that is .000083% of the population. I do not think that is enough to capture an accurate assessment of the multitude of people in the US, much less apply a theory that considers the definition of Morality and call it good.
Much like theunkblogger72, I am a firm believer that much of our morals are formed and shaped by our environment. However, I do not think that the morals come from “respect” of nature, others, and one’s self. Our morals are built by our experiences and reinforced by our assimilation into society.
I agree with cdpiskai that this presentation will unlikely shift any thinking regarding how we as Field Grades build relationships with these young Soldiers entering our ranks. And I too wonder whether or not the next few presentations will try to sway thinking or build on conceptual understanding of these theories.
I would venture to say that everyone uses a Emotivism every now and then, but I find it hard to believe that much of the population uses only one type of theory to define their Morality. I would argue that we are all mutts when it comes to our Moral Philosophy. And that we shape or definition of morality to fit our selfish aspirations and convictions.
MAJ Jerrold Dwayne Castro
SG9C
The development of a moral character is an intellectual topic that has been argued for many years. A moral character is defined as an idea in which one is unique and can be distinguished from others. There is a notion that has been passed on from generation to generation that going to church institutes morality. This is a huge misconception. Morality cannot be trivialized by religion. Morals come from respect of nature, respect of others, and respect for you. Personal morals play a role in every single decision we make; we want others to believe we are a good person, someone that can be trusted. But as we are painfully aware not everyone has a moral compass by which they live. I believe that we are strongly influenced by our environment; I was raised by a loving single mother who taught me right from wrong. However, today’s youth lack of a two parent household reflects the current moral climate we are in today. I will concede the fact, though that just because a child is raised by a single parent does not mean that child will lack morals.
There is occasionally consternation among ILE students regarding the added value of some guest speakers. In this case, the question could be posed: “why do all the ‘-isms’ matter?” The greatest significance of the discussion of emotivism, subjectivism, etc. is the establishment of a common language through which to continue the dialogue. Much like discussions of politics and religion, these ethics presentations are unlikely to produce any major shifts in thinking. However, they provide students the tools which can facilitate constructive continuation of the debate. As the seminars continue, it will be interesting to see how much focus is devoted to conceptual understanding versus shifting individual thinking.
It’s been said, misquoted, and misinterpreted, but holds true: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The NSYR survey is interesting, but it lacks vital information. Without a reference base to evaluate the results, it stands as an interesting data point. It also give grist for the discussion mill regarding emotivism and subjectivism, but really should preclude us from drawing any profound conclusions regarding society as a whole.
The real question I’d like to pose is this: How much of our dissatisfaction with new recurits and junior military members is actually a result of a change in culture, and how much of it is viewing our own history through the “I remember when” lense? I know for a FACT that my grandfather did not actually walk to school uphill both ways in the snow with barbwire shoes, but that’s how he remembers it.
I enjoyed Dr. Bell’s lecture, however I think we must remain cautious when dissecting statistics and surveys. The survey we discussed included only 230 young adults across America. If someone interviewed 230 people in our CSGC class, it may give a general idea of the kind of things this class thinks or believes however; interviewing only 230 young people is nowhere close to deciding the moral beliefs of young people across America. In general terms I believe young people know what “Right” is and what is “Wrong”, but I think we all use emotivism when it comes to defining what “Right” and “Wrong” is.
MAJ Katresha Bailey SG9B
Dr. Bell’s discussion on both Subjectivism and Emotivism began with an introduction into the definition of the two. I for one have never taken part in a discussion relating to the two terms so I was hoping to learn something new. He explained Subjectivism as a subset of Relativism and Emotivism as a subset of Subjectivism. I was instantly confused!
In short, he describes Subjectivism as a means of avoiding conflict and how it can be deemed a defensive move by those who are subjective. I beleive tht at times I am subjective. When a situation presents itself as non-relavent or even negative to me I simply avoid it. I’m not sure if I can refer to my actions as a defensive measure however.
Emotivism says that morality is the invention of an individuals feeling or emotion. Emotivism says that morality is not based on an individuals reasoning but that it is non-cognitive. I’m not really sure as to where he was going with this portion of his brief but I imiagine that had he explained a bit more thouroughly and with more examples, I may have understood his meaning.
I found Dr. Bell’s lecture on “Contemporary Moral Philosophy” to be both interesting and an accurate reflection of today’s youth and our societal belief system (as a whole). The points highlighted from the NSYR study were a lack of commitment, morality being marginal, choosing tolerance to avoid conflict, individualistic thinking, a minimal sense of responsibility for others and morality as a social survival contract. The ethical philosophy adopted and executed by a leader determines discipline procedures and the acceptable behavior for all workers in an organization. Therefore, it is imperative a leader thoroughly understands the ethical challenges encountered by soldiers and civilians on a daily basis. The moral ethics of the United States was originally based on biblical or Christian principles. The Constitution of the United States epitomizes these biblical truths. Furthermore, our biblical roots remains printed on our currency, “In God We Trust.” In contrast to today, moral philosophy is now considered relative to whatever the individual’s (e.g. culture, circumstance, etc.) needs are, also referred to as moral relativism. In 2001, a national study conducted by Barna Research Group revealed that only one out of four adults “lean primarily on religious principles and teaching or Bible content when making moral decision.” Furthermore, approximately 50% of the surveyed adults admitted to basing their moral decisions on “whatever will bring them the most pleasing or satisfying results.” I feel Dr. Bell’s lecture (subjectivism and emotivism) provided great insight into this adopted thinking or behavior pattern of society. What do you contribute the moral shift of society to?
The reason many of our youth have no concept of a moral dillema is because they have no experience with it. It is difficult to concieve of making a difficult decision when you have little control over the important parts of your life. When everything is handed to you and your greatest choice is “Which college should I attend?” how do you develop moral character. It is not until a person is on their own in the greater, dangerous world does one face these challenges.