Causas de la migración boliviana hacia España El conjunto de elementos descritos, y los datos empíricos “…

The focus of this final chapter is on the contribution of virtue-centered moral education to military ethics. Given the exigencies of war, soldiers often need to act instantaneously, without time for deliberation. Therefore, if soldiers are to act ethically in pressurized circumstances their actions must proceed from a foundation of deeply ingrained, robust character traits. At the same time, a large proportion of morally significant decisions allow time for deliberation. It is the task of military ethics education to prepare soldiers to contend with the challenges presented by both types of situations.

Meeting these challenges requires the development of the moral virtues and the practical wisdom that comprise the essence of moral character. Developing moral character, in turn, requires a holistic approach to ethics education, one that emphasizes the importance of ethical conduct throughout all aspects of a soldier’s life. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions, military ethics education often fails to meet these conditions.

First, military ethics education is often overly preoccupied with inculcating obedience to rules. This approach certainly has its place, particularly early in soldiers’ military service, when they are adapting to the military environment and are just beginning to understand the standard of conduct that is expected of them. However, as the preceding chapters have shown, building virtuous character requires a great deal more. While a certain degree of indoctrination is a part of ethics education, at least in its initial stages, what essentially differentiates ethics education from indoctrination, is that ethics education should assist students with developing the

ability to think for themselves, as well as to take up the reins and guide their own ethical development.

Second, the level of attention the military devotes to ethics education diminishes

substantially after soldiers complete the initial training required by their branch of service and combat specialty. In a way, this is understandable. There are not enough hours in the day to address all of the training requirements that military units are obliged to satisfy. Unfortunately, there is a common, but mistaken, belief that past a certain age we possess most of the ethical knowledge we are likely to need, as well as the moral fortitude to apply it. Therefore, when military commanders are faced with a range of conflicting training requirements, ethics

education is often the first to be neglected. Sadly, this neglect often communicates that ethics is not an especially high priority for military commanders, leading many soldiers to assume that it should not be a priority for them either, in turn facilitating the development of a moral climate that enables ethical abuses.

The consequences that result from of a lack of emphasis on ethics increase in severity with the rank of the soldier and, in the case of officers, these consequences can be particularly dire. For instance, as officers advance in their careers and assume control of combat operations involving large number of troops, their ethical development does not necessarily keep pace with their increased ethical responsibilities. The same applies to staff officers who, though not in command of large numbers of troops, are responsible for drafting war plans and compiling target lists for combat operations in which noncombatants are placed in extreme peril. Officers serving in both roles require astute judgment about ethical matters, the development of which demands some level of professional ethics education. Apart from combat operations and operational staff planning, the military must also deal with the more mundane problems of

“institutional” ethics that confront most large organizations whose membership is composed of mixed genders, races and sexual orientation. In such organizations, developing respect between different groups unaccustomed to working alongside one another can be especially challenging.

An absence of attention to ethics and ethical development creates a climate in which ethical abuses easily take root and spread. While the popular conception of the virtuous agent is that of a person having the resilience of character to act ethically regardless of the climate in which he finds himself, practical experience demonstrates that the presence of like-minded, virtuous individuals exert an enormous influence over ethical conduct, a fact that virtue theory

acknowledges. As Nancy Sherman observes, “The self-sufficient solitary may not need others as means or instruments for material living (or only minimally so), he will still need others to create jointly a life of virtue.”256 It is the duty of military commanders to create a mutually supportive environment in which virtuous character can develop and flourish.

Along with a positive ethical climate, character development is facilitated by an ethics education that elucidates the elements of virtue theory that were the focus of Chapter Two. For instance, without a clearly articulated moral end, military ethics is reduced to a set of arbitrary rules without a guiding sense or purpose. While no network of rules can adequately address all of the diverse ethical challenges that a soldier may face, if soldiers understand and appreciate the moral end of military service, that end can at least serve as a rough guide for their ethical

reasoning, especially in circumstances in which existing rules prove to be inadequate. In conjunction with articulating a moral end to military service, military ethics education should impart an understanding of the moral virtues and how their integrated practice contributes to achieving the ethical goals of the military profession. Developing an appreciation for the

importance of the integrated practice of the moral virtues also promotes the ethical expression of other character traits, such as loyalty and obedience that, while not moral virtues, are vital for the ethical practice of the military profession.

Traditional classroom educational methods, such as lectures and structured group

discussions, are important in promoting an intellectual appreciation for the elements of virtue theory described above. However, just as skill as a violinist cannot be acquired solely through the study of music theory, moral character cannot be developed purely through attending ethics lectures. Instead, moral character is formed through a process of habituation, which means acquiring experience in the practice of the virtues. Therefore, if soldiers are to internalize the elements of virtue theory, as well as develop the practical reason and the ethical dispositions that are the twin pillars of moral character, ethics education must expand beyond the static classroom setting.

The foundation of moral character is laid during childhood, with the development of ethically appropriate emotional dispositions, such as the dispositions to be generous, just and courageous. Most of us possess a predisposition towards some of these traits, which are the natural virtues discussed in Chapter Two. With proper guidance, these dispositions evolve as we mature and by the time we reach adulthood many of our ethical dispositions are already formed; however, contrary to what some critics assert, this does not mean that these dispositions cannot be heightened or that new ones cannot be developed. At the same time, without due attention, the fundamental components of moral character, once attained, can also be lost. One of the goals of this chapter will be to argue for this view and suggest methods by which these ethical dispositions can be developed as well as sustained.

In order to operate as true virtues that positively contribute to moral character, emotional dispositions require the guidance of practical reason. Like emotional dispositions, practical reason cannot be developed solely in the classroom, although formal education can augment its development. In fact, ethical dispositions and the practical wisdom needed to apply them develop in tandem. For instance, assuming positions of leadership can assist soldiers in developing temperance, or restraint, in regard to their expression of emotions such as anger and aggression that, when displayed in an undisciplined fashion, can have deleterious ethical consequences. Anger and aggression, in and of themselves, are not necessarily unethical, and the same experiences that promote the development of temperance also educate soldiers on how aggression should be practically channeled in order to serve an ethical end. This process was illustrated in Chapter Four, where I describe how practical reason can be developed through incorporating key aspects of the military’s professional ethic, such as restraint and

discrimination, into operational training. This form of training demonstrates how the practice of habituation can help in developing a soldier’s ethical dispositions and practical reason to the point at which ethical conduct becomes second nature.

Unfortunately, the educational methods described above are by no means practiced military- wide, and I will argue that they should be implemented more widely. In particular, I will argue that military ethics education is woefully deficient in promoting the development of the practical reason that is one of the cornerstones of moral character and that the military would benefit from a more systematic effort to develop this critical skill.

However, before delving more deeply into the mechanics of character development, one of the first challenges that must be addressed is the argument that the military should not be in the business of trying to build character at all, that such an enterprise is not only futile but also a

paternalistic affront to the autonomy of the men and women that elect, of their own free will, to join the armed forces. This criticism is just one component of larger debate over the ultimate goal of ethics education. Should ethics education be purely ‘functional,’ concentrating on promoting correct ethical behavior within the narrow context of the soldier’s professional duties, or should it be ‘aspirational’, concerning itself with the more ambitious objective of shaping soldiers’ characters, an approach that extends beyond the instrumental concerns of promoting military efficacy and encompasses their nonprofessional identity, as well. Some moral

philosophers see the functional and aspirational approaches as fundamentally at odds. While I will argue that the goal of moral education should be aspirational, certain elements of the functional approach, such as the emphasis on professionalism, also have an important contribution to make to military ethics education and can coexist with an approach that is primarily aspirational.