US ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE

US Army Command and General Staff School

Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) Common Core
L100: Developing Leaders and Organizations

L102: Ethical Dimensions of Organizational Leadership

Reading L102RB: An Overview of Ethical Philosophy and the Military Leader’s Ethical Reasoning
Process
Authors: CH Josh Grimes, Mr. Ken Turner, and CH Jeff McKinney

Every time you make a serious moral judgment, you become that judgment; every time you
issue a command, you not only tell your subordinates what to do but what to be. That is
why, in the horrible circumstances in which you or your Soldiers might find yourselves in
the months ahead in a world seemingly gone morally mad, I trust in you because of the
moral compass which is yours from your education, your experience, your expertise. You
do on the basis of your information; you are on the basis of your formation. Ethics, in the
final analysis, is caught, not taught.
James H Toner, “A Message to Garcia: Leading Soldiers in Moral Mayhem”

Introduction

This paper provides a broad overview of traditional concepts in the field of ethics and their
applicability to military organizational-level leaders. Effective organizational leaders are ethical leaders
who continually practice their ethical reasoning skills in order to make decisions that help cultivate an
ethical organizational climate and promote ethical conduct in war. Ethical leadership can be understood
to consist of the leader’s: moral-ethical identity, ethical competency, and ethical responsibility for the
organization. Moral-ethical identity is concerned with who the leader is and consists of one’s character,
personal values, and moral foundation. Ethical competency is concerned with what the leader knows and
consists of a basic understanding of ethics as a discipline and ethical reasoning/decision-making
processes. Finally, ethical responsibility is concerned with the leader’s ethical influence and approach to
the factors that contribute to an ethical organization.1 This paper will predominantly focus on the leader’s
ethical competency, while addressing some considerations with respect to ethical identity and ethical
responsibility.

Understanding the relationship between the three main components of ethical leadership is essential
to the development of a leader’s moral judgment. Because every aspect of human experience is in some
way morally-laden, ethical leadership—and by extension, moral judgment—cannot be divorced from
effective organizational leadership. Therefore, subjects such as, but not limited to: power and influence,
cultivating trust, leading change, fostering an ethical climate, understanding the moral dimensions of
human resiliency, effectively dealing with (moral) complexity, and developing morally courageous
followers—are all ethical dimensions of organizational leadership.

What is Ethics?

The subject of ethics, or “moral philosophy,” is a discipline whose fundamental influences include the
ancient near-eastern King Solomon (10th Century B.C.), eastern philosopher Confucius of China (6th-5th
Centuries B.C.), and western philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics of ancient Greece (5th-3rd
Centuries B.C.). Despite its predominantly religious and philosophical origins, ethics is centrally import
to professionals in the domains of medicine, law, psychology, sociology, political science, business, and
the military. It is “that branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to live, with the idea of the
good and human well-being, and with concepts such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong.”2

L102 Reading B June 2023

Created by and for CGSC
 The distinctions between morals and ethics and the sub-divisions within ethics is a complicated
subject. Many theorists describe morals as an individual’s guiding system of beliefs about right and
wrong. Ethics are often considered the outward expression of that inward system of beliefs, especially
with respect to how morals affect human relationships and the responsibilities of members of a society. In
philosophy, many theorists use the terms ethics and morality interchangeably. Main divisions within the
study of ethics include: 1) metaethics, 2) value theory, 3) normative ethics, and 4) applied ethics.3

Metaethics refers to the study of such questions as “is there good and evil?” and examines the nature
of various claims in response to such questions. It also addresses the bases for such things as moral
beliefs and principles, moral judgments, and relative versus absolute moral truths, as found in such
authorities as God and human reason.

Value theory refers to the study of such ideas as what constitutes the “good life,” human well-being,
and what is morally worthy of pursuit.

Normative ethics refers to the systematic effort to understand moral concepts and justify moral
principles and theories. It analyzes key ethical concepts such as what determines an action to be
“moral or right” by way of fundamental moral duties, consequences, and the nature of moral
character. It seeks to establish principles of right behaviors that serve as guides for individuals or
groups.

Applied ethics refers to the study and practical application of ethics to morally controversial issues
such as capital punishment, race and gender studies, abortion, and civil disobedience, as well as
specific fields such as business, education, and military ethics or more specifically, the Just War
Tradition (JWT).

Why Should Military Leaders Study Ethics?

The Ethical Demands of a Military Profession. As members of a profession, military leaders must
internalize and adhere to the profession’s ethic that grounds and demands their ethicality. Army doctrine
specifically identifies the Army as an ethical profession,4 one in which its members must answer to their
Nation and its civilian leaders on actions involving right and wrong, abiding by and enforcing the law,
both national and international treaties and agreements, as well as domestic law found within the US
Military Justice System. Decision makers in the military must always consider the professional
responsibilities inherent in their status when making decisions on behalf of or in the best interests of the
Nation.

Military officers face questions of right and wrong daily, from their first assignments until their
resignation or retirement. Our Nation expects officers to think carefully about decisions with ethical
content, rather than simply reacting intuitively or instinctively. This is especially true given the magnitude
and scope of responsibility inherent in organizational level leadership. Leaders must reflect on ethical
issues, examine them from various perspectives, and make informed decisions in the best interest of the
organization and Nation.

Finally, because of the sacred trust the Nation places in its military leaders, only the highest ethical
standards are acceptable. Ethical decisions in the military, especially in combat, often involve the lives of
Soldiers, enemy combatants, and non-combatants. While equipment is replaceable, sons and daughters of
our country are not. As one of the few professions sanctioned to take life, we owe it to our subordinates
and the Nation to demonstrate ethical behavior of impeccable standards. Soldiers do not routinely join the

L102 Reading B 2 May 2023

military with the intent to commit war crimes. However, the complexity, horrors, and uncertainty of war
frequently lead to war crimes, and other atrocities or consequences of moral injury. Ethical reasoning
skills and an understanding of JWT (see appendix A for a brief summary) provide a foundation to help
navigate the uncertainty and complexity of war to avoid rash, unethical decisions and behavior. Sound
ethical behavior is not about avoiding legal punishment, but ultimately about striving for the good,
resulting in a sound conscience and peace-of-mind.

Leadership Doctrine: Character and Ethical Reasoning. ADP 6-22 begins its discourse on the
nature and scope of Army leadership by first addressing who an Army leader is: one of character,
presence, and intellect. A leader’s character is the moral anchoring—the moral and ethical qualities of a
leader—that consists in the lived-demonstration of the Army Values and the Warrior Ethos, as well as the
development of empathy, discipline and humility.5 Explicitly addressed is the inherent connection
between the leader’s cultivation of character attributes and the necessity to become an “ethically astute”
leader.6 Effective leaders of excellence are those who not only improve their technical, tactical, and
operational competence, but continually develop their moral character—intellectually and emotionally—
which includes devoting attention to refining their moral and ethical reasoning abilities.

The Cost of Ethical Failure. While ethical leadership contributes to a positive climate of trust and
mutual respect, unethical behavior brings retaliation (or isolation), creates conflict, damages individual
and organizational reputation, and diminishes one’s ability to achieve objectives. War heightens the
stakes, providing extra incentive to avoid unethical behavior. More often than not, the reasons for
removing leaders from command or other leadership roles usually include either moral failure or poor
judgment on ethical matters, as opposed to instances of technical or tactical incompetence. For leaders
who wish to experience a full and successful career, it is in their self-interest to reflect upon the ethical
nature of their behavior and responsibilities.

To Improve Critical Thinking Skills. Ethical reasoning is a form of critical thinking that examines
the complexity of “morally-laden” issues—issues that bear some degree of moral weight or consideration.
Any issue of relative importance—be it conduct in war, treatment of subordinates, demonstrating dignity
and respect to others, creating an organizational climate of trust, etc.—is given a degree of value or
worthiness, making it moral in nature.

As such, most issues leaders face are, in some form or fashion, moral issues that require ethical
reasoning: the ability of a leader to 1) righty identify moral problems and their various features (e.g.
people’s interests, cultural norms, emotional considerations, effects on individual and communal well-
being, etc.), 2) evaluate ethical approaches, 3) make a decision, and 4) demonstrate the requisite character
to persist in moral actions.7 Akin to leaders developing their critical thinking skills with respect to
confronting the complexity inherent to systems thinking, operational art and design, and logistical
planning, leaders must equip themselves to deal with moral complexity by moving beyond mere intuition,
cultivating the skills needed for effective ethical leadership.

Since “words have meaning” it is essential leaders have a coherent “ethical lexicon” to support ethical
reasoning.

Character. Although Army doctrine no longer provides a concise definition of character, it

describes character in terms of the leader’s “true nature guided by their conscience, which affects
their moral attitudes and actions…Character consists of the moral and ethical qualities of an
individual revealed through their decisions and actions….” Character attributes that are of special
interest to the Army and its leaders include the Army Values Empathy, Warrior Ethos, Service
Ethos, Discipline, and Humility.8

L102 Reading B 3 May 2023

 Character is understood as a person’s true nature that guides their moral perception and
reasoning; it consists of their moral foundation (e.g., influences, beliefs, values, etc.) and their
habituated dispositions to think, feel, and behave in certain ways. A leader with exemplary
character refers to one who has cultivated virtues: habituated dispositions to think, feel, and
behave in morally skillful ways9 (e.g., consistently demonstrate or express moral courage,
compassion, integrity, emotional intelligence, etc.).

Moral bias. Akin to the concept of unconscious or confirmation bias, moral bias refers to those
unconscious, intuitive beliefs about moral matters, be they about culture, religion, personal
identity, acceptable behaviors and norms, universal rules, etc. that are often a part of an
individual’s tendency to interpret various moral issues in a way that adheres to their worldview
and thus defend themselves from experiencing cognitive dissonance.10 Not all moral biases are
“wrong,” however, if we remain unaware of our biases we will not be effective ethical decision-
makers.

Moral complexity. A concept akin to systems thinking, moral complexity recognizes that in any
given situation there are various moral beliefs, moral principles, values, sources of values,
expressions of values, and moral consequences to consider, often having varying relationships of
complexity to one another, rather than existing as isolated parts. In simplest terms, to recognize
moral complexity is to recognize that very few ethical dilemmas are simple in scope and require a
leader to continually develop both one’s intuitive and moral critical thinking skills to rightly
discern the most relevant moral elements of a situation so that they might effectively analyze and
consider the requisite virtues, rules, and consequences.11

Moral disengagement. A concept from social and moral psychology that refers to the process in
which individuals and groups convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply to them in
a given context. Mechanisms of moral disengagement include moral rationalization, euphemistic
labeling, diffusion of responsibility, and dehumanization.12

Moral perception. Term used in ethics and moral psychology that refers to one’s ability to
discern the morally relevant and salient features of a particular situation. Moral perception (i.e.,
its ongoing development) is needed for moral reasoning and the ability to deliberate the right
thing to do, for it helps a leader identify what is morally important. Given the close relationship
between moral perception and the affective domain of human reasoning (emotions), it might also
be described in terms of emotional intelligence, specifically with respect to the moral elements at
play in such things as empathy, self-regulation, and social awareness. Moral perception is
associated with the idea of intuition, which also must be cultivated to be reliable.13

Normative. From the concept of normativity, which means to determine a standard for something;
to judge it as good, permissible, bad and/or impermissible. In ethics, it is concerned with
determining what a good or moral action is versus one that is bad, e.g., is an action good solely
based on obedience to fulfil a moral rule, due to outcomes it produced, or one’s character?

Principles (moral). A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as part of a foundation or

system of beliefs that govern behaviors and/or reasoning. In ethics, often synonymous with moral
rules. While moral principles often serve as the foundation for laws, this subject should not be
directly conflated with military legal ethics, which is concerned with the minimum standards of
conduct required by military law/regulations and policies.

Values (moral). Individual and/or corporate beliefs about what is (morally) worthy to uphold,
pursue, protect, etc. In relationship to principles, values are the qualities or standards that

L102 Reading B 4 May 2023

 motivate human behavior, whereas principles are more akin to the rules that govern actions. E.g.,
we might value honesty in our relationships (because it is something we want) as well as follow a
general principle or rule about honest behavior (it is something we think we should do).14

Virtues. Purposefully habituated, intrinsically worthwhile dispositions of one’s character that

orient him or her to the right sorts of moral goals and think, feel, and behave appropriately in light
of the those goals. For someone to be virtuous means that they consistently behave in ways that
accord with virtue.15 For virtues to be intrinsically worthwhile means that they are goods in and of
themselves—they are not means to some other end, such as for the appearance of being
“virtuous” so as to benefit from another’s approval or recognition.

The Ethical Leader and Ethical Dilemmas16

Army leadership doctrine claims that ethical reasoning is necessary in all leadership decisions, and
while living the Army Values and moral intuition are important aspects of being an ethical leader, they
are not enough for effective ethical reasoning, especially when one encounters ethical dilemmas. Whereas
most leaders can identify unethical choices—choices between “right and wrong,” which requires a leader
to exercise moral courage to confront the issue—ethical dilemmas are much more challenging to
navigate. What is an ethical dilemma? It is a situation in which there are equally competing values at
stake that are difficult to simultaneously honor,17 or what we might call a “right versus right” situation.
For example, many ethical dilemmas are conflicts between such values as the individual versus
community, short term versus long term, truth versus loyalty, and justice versus mercy.18 While framing
an ethical problem like this may at first be challenging, it is essential so that we do not oversimplify
ethical situations or intuitively paint one value as superior to another without critically reflecting on the
moral issues at hand.

Common Ethical Dilemmas – “Right v. Right”

Individual v. Community
Truth v. Loyalty
Justice v. Mercy
Short-term v. Long-term
Figure 1.

In addition to understanding one’s biases, intuitions, and the nature of ethical dilemmas, it is
important leaders have a basic understanding of traditional normative (or evaluative) approaches to ethics.
Once a leader identifies an ethical dilemma, they must test possible decisions against varying ethical
criteria.19 For this we turn to three traditional ethics theories common in Western culture.

Western Normative Ethics: Traditional Approaches to Determining What’s Morally “Right”

In his book Leadership, Peter G. Northouse discusses the relationship of ethics to leadership as
concerned with “what leaders do and who leaders are.”20 He argues that all ethical theory falls into one
of two broad domains: character or conduct. Most ethical philosophers also approach ethical behavior in
terms one or both of these perspectives. This section covers three of the most influential Western
normative theories of ethics—perspectives on what makes a person’s action moral or right: virtue ethics,
deontology, and consequentialism. Appendix B provides summaries of four less dominant but not
uncommon ethical perspectives found in Western culture: moral relativism, moral objectivism, divine
command theory, and situational ethics.

L102 Reading B 5 May 2023

Virtue Ethics: Ethics of Character or Moral Identify

In virtue ethics, right action is the outward expression or demonstration of a person’s “virtuous” or
exemplary moral character. This perspective is the oldest of the theories and following WWII experienced
a resurgence in the field of philosophy and moral psychology that continues to this day. Arguably
fundamental in the field of ethics, while its view of right action differs from the other normative
approaches, the role of character and virtues in the life of a moral agent are still matters of importance to
deontological philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and consequentialist philosophers such as Jeremy
Bentham.21

Among Western ethics traditions, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics were the first and most profound
Greek champions of what we now call “virtue ethics.” On one hand, virtue-based ethics is easy to
understand because it appeals to our innate ability to recognize people of strong or exemplary moral
character—people who not only (e.g.) demonstrate behaviors like moral courage, compassion, and
empathy, but who also demonstrate a higher degree of wisdom in their moral behavior. Relative to their
age and maturity, their moral perception allows them understand that many moral issues are not “binary”
or black and white in nature, and are able to discern and address the more important moral issues in
complex situations.
Central to virtue ethics is the view that moral agents must cultivate character that consists of
“virtues.” Commonly confused with values, moral principles, or personality traits, virtues might be
understood as intrinsically valuable, habituated dispositions or skills to think, feel, and behave in a
morally appropriate way in any given situation.22 Unlike moral rules or principles, one doesn’t simply
identify a virtue that should be applied or followed—virtues must be cultivated and integrated in the life
of the person through practice, feedback, and reflection.23 Aristotle described any given virtue as the
“golden mean” between vices of excess and deficiency. For example, the virtue of courage is the moral
mean between rashness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). Therefore, to cultivate courage is to develop
the moral skill that helps one properly navigate situations that arouse fear. Courage entails composing
oneself intellectually and emotionally to face the fear in a morally appropriate manner, rather than
overcompensating for it (rashness) or avoiding the cause of the fear altogether (cowardice).

Virtue ethics is also historically associated with various notions of character development. Therefore,
a leader’s moral character development must consist in both embodying his or her values and cultivating
moral and intellectual virtues. In fact, it is arguable that values and virtues have a complementary
relationship in developing excellent moral character. Whereas values are fundamental elements of one’s
moral beliefs that motivate moral behavior, virtues inform the expressions of and commitments to one’s
values.24 In other words, values help leaders morally ground their virtues, and virtues help leaders
effectively employ or operationalize their values in everyday interactions. Together, values and virtues
help leaders develop moral perception: the ability to identify the morally relevant and salient features of a
situation. Below are some commonly accepted lists of virtues:25

Plato’s cardinal virtues: Wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice

Aristotle’s moral and intellectual virtues: wisdom (intellectual), courage, temperance, justice,
friendship, liberality, truthfulness, patience, wit, proper ambition
Theological virtues (Thomas Aquinas): Faith, hope, and charity
Examples of “modern” virtues: empathy (and other emotional intelligence competencies),
humanity, transcendence, benevolence, non-malevolence, fairness, kindness, conscientiousness,
and gratitude

L102 Reading B 6 May 2023

 With respect to moral actions, virtue ethics as a normative approach says the “virtuous person” does
the right thing by acting in accordance with his/her character (i.e., demonstrating virtues). Likewise, the
virtuous person recognizes a bad decision when it would not be in accordance with exemplary
character—e.g., a cowardly act, an act that disregards justice or mercy, or an act that seems foolish.
People who exercise this perspective hold deep convictions about how we make the world a better place
by cultivating virtues (i.e., character development) in individuals for the sake of a better society, by
raising children of character to become adults with the moral perception to do the right thing.

Challenges to virtue ethics. Despite the relative simplicity and beauty of virtue ethics, it does have
its shortcomings as a normative theory. First, there is no universally recognized list of virtues and
different cultures often emphasize some virtues over others. Second, very few people attain a level
maturity where they are operating purely out of virtue,26 which some argue undermines its normative
power—i.e., if not everyone is able to attain virtue, can their actions be measured as morally right or
wrong solely on virtue? In other words, is virtue ethics too demanding?27

However, one of the central criticisms directed at virtue ethics as a normative approach is that with
respect to ethical decision making, it does not provide a method or set of guidelines that dictates a “right
action” (unlike deontology and consequentialism). Rather, it provides advice on how to navigate moral
rules and consequences, and essentially presumes that right actions will follow from those who have
strong moral character.28

In the case of leaders, while true for many direct or individual ethical matters, this is unhelpful when
attempting to make ethical decisions at an organizational scale that entail additional considerations such
as the second and third order effects of rules and consequences. As discussed in the following sections,
while many of the fundamentals of virtue ethics serve as a basis for ethical reasoning and are indeed
critical for developing exemplary leader character, the ethical organizational leader must also consider
how moral rules and consequences relate to virtues.

Deontology: Ethics of Moral Duty/Principle

Deontological ethics (from the Latin Deos for Duty) orient around one’s moral duty to obey moral
rules or principles, i.e., right action consists of fulfilling our moral obligations. Kant most famously
represented this perspective in the West through his categorical imperative: Act as if the maxim (a general
truth or principle) of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature. Good is
defined in this context by universally recognized principles of conduct. Thus, in deontology, a person’s
action is judged “moral” based on the person’s good will to fulfill his or her moral obligations,
irrespective of personal motives, character, or the consequences an action might produce.

A major element of this perspective is the importance of reason in determining a universal set of
moral principles. In this school of thought, we identify those things that we must do, and then we do them
wholeheartedly.29 Creeds embody these principles as the West Point Motto: Duty, Honor, and Country
and the belief that the world becomes a better place when everyone understands their obligations,
expressed through rules and laws. The “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto
you) speaks to this sense of behaving as everyone else ought to behave towards one another.

Challenges to deontology. Although this principled approach certainly makes for a more orderly
world, it is not without its shortcomings. First, ethical conduct according to this approach is limited to
those things that have explicit rules or obligations. However, problems often arise when people must
make difficult decisions without rules that tell them exactly what to do or not to do. If there were a rule
for every possible situation in life, the book(s) of these rules would be impossibly large. Laws, treaties,
and regulations (common expressions of obligations) cannot address every ethical contingency. Second,

L102 Reading B 7 May 2023

obligations in life often conflict with one another. A Soldier has moral obligations to his family, to his
commander, and to his fellow Soldiers, but those obligations often conflict, requiring the agent have more
at his or her disposal to make an ethically sound decision. Finally, as a normative approach, this view
does not consider the moral outcomes of actions as relevant to what is ultimately moral, based on the
argument that moral agents cannot be held accountable for things outside of their control.30

Consequentialism: Ethics of Moral Outcomes

Consequentialism—right action is that which results in morally good consequences or ends—is a

category of ethics that includes normative approaches such as utilitarianism, pragmatism, ethical egoism,
and altruism.31 For the purposes of this article we focus on one of the most longstanding and common
approaches in the West: utilitarianism. This perspective, best represented by English philosophers Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill, appears to be the easiest to understand, especially in results-oriented
organizations like the military or in the business world. When victory on the battlefield or dominance of a
market or shareholder profit is considered fixed or absolute good, it simplifies how we think about
particular decisions. Utilitarianism specifically defines a morally good action as that which achieves the
greatest amount of good for the greatest number (of people). Rightness and wrongness are proportional to
the goodness or badness that results from an action. Those who hold to this perspective often say,
“Ultimately, it is the results which we must all live with.” This is an important view for us to consider
because it forces us to ask what the first, second, and third order effects of a decision might be.

Challenges to consequentialism/utilitarianism. Despite the seemingly intuitive nature and

popularity of this view, it has its faults. First, results-based ethics assume that we can predict with
precision the effects of our decisions. This may be relatively easy for first order effects, but it becomes
progressively more difficult for second, third, and fourth order effects. A second fault is that, even as a
normative approach, it requires other ethical perspectives to help define what constitutes the “greatest
good” (i.e., what moral values, principles, and even virtues have to say about what is ultimately “good”
for people to have, experience, etc.). The understanding of what is good must come from the traditional
sources of value within the nation or culture, but when certain fundamental values conflict (e.g., with a
controversial issue such as abortion: is the good of the “many” to protect the individual rights of women
or to protect the individual rights of the unborn?), utilitarianism requires more than the greatest
good/greatest number calculus to help an individual come to an ethical decision.32

A Military Leader’s Ethical Reasoning Model

Having discussed the importance of ethics, the inadequacy of moral intuition for effective ethical
reasoning, the basic nature of ethical dilemmas, and the ethical traditions that most inform our approach
to evaluating moral actions, how might we integrate this for effective, ethical reasoning at the
organizational level? In this final section we examine an ethical reasoning model that integrates the
fundamental importance of exemplary leader character with a moral reasoning process to help leaders
develop and utilize a holistic approach to ethical decision-making.

First, this model assumes that leader character is not merely an optional component to effective
ethical reasoning. Rather, leaders must continually devote themselves to developing exemplary character
(e.g., cultivate virtues and ADP 6-22’s character attributes) so that they mature in their skills of moral
perception and foster the moral-emotional intelligence (or moral awareness) requisite to ethical reasoning.

Second, the model places the leader within the context of the military profession, highlighting their
role as a member of an institution and steward of its ethic. The organizational leader must view their
ethical responsibility and influence as beginning with their self and extending out into the organization.
The model also places ethical reasoning within this larger context and in conjunction with the Army

L102 Reading B 8 May 2023

Leader Requirements Model (ALRM), for a leader’s ethical reasoning is an (ongoing) extension of her
character, presence, and intellect, thereby affecting their ability to lead, develop, and achieve in an ethical
fashion.

Third, the model provides a basic ethical reasoning process adapted from research by moral
psychologist James Rest33 and integrates a complementary approach to making ethical judgments, adapted
from James Svara’s “Ethical Triangle.” 34 Svara proposed a complementary approach to using the three
major ethical theories together—virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism—in which each
approach is balanced with one another. According to Svara, each ethical theory provides a “filter” from
which to view ethical situations. Independently they provide valuable information from each perspective,
while combining perspectives protects against the shortcomings of any one used in isolation. Svara also
asserts that if one moves too far in any single direction on the ethical triangle, “the ethical basis for action
is weakened and unethical actions may seem justifiable.”35

Although Svara’s approach is a helpful starting place for military leaders, at times he conflates ideas
of virtues and values. Moral values underlie all normative ethics positions—they are not isolated to one
more than another. Additionally, his “Ethical Triangle” model also singularly associates intuition with
virtue; however, even Kant believed that one’s sense of moral obligation to obey principles was morally
intuitive. Thus, given that virtues are moral and intellectual dispositions, a more nuanced understanding
of moral intuitions might be that they can be developed in relationship to virtues.

Finally, it is important to remember that ethical decision-making processes are not designed to help
an individual choose between “right and wrong,” but to help make the best decision when faced with an
ethical dilemma. Many military leaders fail to make the moral choice not for lack of reasoning skills, but
for lack of character (i.e., moral courage).

Considering both the usefulness of Svara’s model and its minor shortcomings, we use a
contextualized version of the “Ethical Triangle” as one of the steps within a conceptual model we
developed to help portray the scope of the military professional’s ethical reasoning process.36 See Figures
2 and 3 for a graphical representation of the “Military Leader’s Ethical Reasoning Model” and
contextualized “Ethical Triangle.”

Figure 2 – Military Leader’s Ethical Reasoning Model

L102 Reading B 9 May 2023

Using the Ethical Reasoning Model

The leader’s character serves as the basis for moral perception and ethical reasoning. When engaging
in ethical reasoning to address moral challenges, ethical dilemmas, or ethical organizational decision-
making, the leader follows four basic steps:

Step 1. ID the Problem: The leader identifies the moral problem or ethical dilemma, attempting to
recognize one or more “right v. right” values-conflicts and other moral features to help establish 2-3
initial options/possible courses of action.

Step 2. Evaluate the Options: The leader evaluates courses of action against the criteria provided in
our contextualized ethical triangle—an integrated, complementary analysis provided by the three
normative approaches to ethics, grounded and guided by a leader’s character, and in consideration of the
specific ethical context (see Figure 3). In this step, the leader is not attempting to discern which “corner”
or “corners” of the triangle is best; rather focus on considering the influences each of the corners brings
to bear as they evaluate courses of action. They determine if the original options are viable and/or if
another option arises from analysis.

Figure 3 – Military Leader’s Ethical Triangle

For the sake of decision-making, instead of trying to find a confluence of the three corners, work through
each in the following order:

Begin with examining the moral principles/rules at play... (Deontology)

- What are my moral obligations in this situation?

L102 Reading B 10 May 2023

 - What rules exist that I must consider?
- What regulations/laws must I follow?
- Is there more than one moral principle at play? Which appears to be the primary?

Next, consider the outcomes and what the “greater good” might be (Consequentialism)
- Who wins and who loses?
- In this situation, should the greatest good be for the many or the “few”?
- What first, second, and third order effects will my actions produce?
- Have I done my best to determine what the greater “good” is in this situation?

Finally, consider what you have analyzed thus far in terms of how a person of exemplary character
might approach this situation (Virtue Ethics)
This corner/approach does not provide guidelines for determining right-v-wrong actions, but rather
speaks to how a leader should compose herself and how to best integrate rules and consequences in a
morally effective manner:

- How might ______ (insert name of an exemplary leader with whom you have previously served)
work through this problem?
- How does my integrity inform my decisions?
- What will moral courage require me to risk? (e.g., breaking or following a rule for a greater good;
risking the lives of a few for the good of the organization and mission, etc.)
- How must I apply both compassion and justice in this situation as I consider the consequences of
my decisions?
- What moral behaviors are intrinsically good and important to demonstrate in this situation,
regardless of the moral rules that must be obeyed or the final outcomes of my decision?

After evaluating the available courses of action with the ethical triangle, consider any alternative courses
of action that may have arisen during your ethical analysis.

These first two steps may be the most crucial, as their success is highly dependent on the relative moral
maturity of the leader. Cognitive and emotional moral development generally increases with age and
experience,37 therefore it is important that younger leaders surround themselves with experienced peers
and superiors to offset any hindrances to moral judgment such as ego, insecurities, and inordinate
ambition.

Step 3. Commit to a Decision: After choosing a course of action, the leader must now commit to the
decision. This step entails the leader checking motivations, regulating emotions, and safeguarding against
any competing values or interests that might undermine the ethical action (e.g., careerism, social
acceptance, etc.). When it comes to organizationally influencing an ethical climate and culture, it is
important that leaders reward followers for demonstrations of moral commitments and actions as much as
they are rewarded for demonstrations of technical competency and the practical outcomes of their work.

Step 4. Moral action: Implementing the course of action must follow reasoning. This returns us to
the critical importance of leader character, for character (e.g., embodiment of values, discipline, empathy,
and such virtues as moral courage, integrity, and just action) empowers people to overcome opposition,
cope with stress when decisions must be implemented quickly, resist distractions, and navigate the moral
complexities surrounding the ethical decision (e.g., others’ emotions, important but less critical moral
issues, acceptance of potential consequences if things go awry, etc.).

L102 Reading B 11 May 2023

Conclusion

Ethical decisions are the hardest of human decisions and the consideration of all possible perspectives
sometimes make the decision in question more complex and more difficult for the decision maker. In the
end, when we consider all of the angles, we must use our best judgment. The difficult business of tough
ethical decisions is made somewhat easier simply by identifying which perspectives are the most
important to consider for the question at hand.

The mature decision maker reflects upon the nature of the decision, as well as the values and
perspectives that rank the highest in making the decision. This requires both awareness of self and those
moral variables at play in the environment/situation. If the leader knows how each variable is influencing
the situation, they may be in a better position to analyze the thought process. Thus, ethical leadership is
both an art and a science, for it requires leaders to continually develop exemplary moral character and the
skills and mental processes requisite for effective ethical reasoning—all of which is not only necessary
effective decision-making, but in what is often the toughest part of the job: explaining difficult ethical
decisions to others, especially those who will be directly affected by the decision and the moral
consequences that entail.

1
See Craig E. Johnson, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow, 7th ed.
(Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2021) for a comprehensive treatment of these components
treated under the following subheadings: Looking Inward, Ethical Standards and Strategies, and Shaping
Ethical Contexts.
2
Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 7th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth, 2012), 2-3.
3
Ibid, p. 2 and Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2015), p. 2.
4
Department of the Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, November 2019)
5
Ibid, para. 2-3
6
Ibid, para. 2-18.
7
James R. Rest, (1994). “Background: Theory and Research,” in Moral Development in the Professions:
Psychology and Applied ethics, edited by James Rest and Darcia Narvaez (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1994), 1-25; James R. Rest, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (New
York: Praeger, 1986).
8
Dept. of the Army, ADP 6-22, paras. 2-1 to 2-3.
9
Julia Annas, Intelligent Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
10
Michael Lacewing, “Expert Moral Intuition and its Development,” in Topoi, 34 (2015), 409-425.
See Darcia Narvaez, “Moral Complexity: The Fatal Attraction of Truthiness and the Importance of
11

Mature Moral Functioning,” in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (2, 2012), 163-181.

12
Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves (New York,
NY: Worth Publishers, 2016).
13
Lacewing, “Expert Moral Intuition and its Development,” 410.

L102 Reading B 12 May 2023

14
Mary Crossan, Daina Mazutis, and Gerard Seijts, “In Search of Virtue: The Role of Virtues, Values,
and Character Strengths in Ethical Decision Making,” in Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (2013): 567–
581.
15
Nafsika Athanassoulis, Virtue Ethics (Continuum International Publishing, 2012); Daniel C. Russell,
“Virtue Ethics, Happines, and the Good Life,” in The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 7-28.
16
The conceptual format for this discussion on ethical dilemmas was adapted from Jack Kem, “Ethical
Decision Making: Using the Ethical Triangle,” presented at the 2016 CGSC Ethics Symposium, Fort
Leavenworth, KS, April 2016.
17
Robert Roetzel, “Toward the Army’s Ethical System,” U S Army Command and General Staff College
Leadership Instruction Division, Leadership Course Materials (Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Army
Command and General Staff College, 2003).
18
Rushworth M Kidder, How Good People Make Tough Choices (New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc., 1995).
19
Dept. of the Army, ADP 6-22, para. 2-18
20
Peter Guy Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications,
Inc., 2015), 330.
21
See Nancy Snow, Making a Necessity of Virtue: Aristotle and Kant on Virtue (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997) and Ben Bradley, “Contemporary Consequentialist Theories of Virtue,” in The
Oxford Handbook of Virtue, edited by Nancy Snow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
22
See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (T.H. Irwin, Trans, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1985); Julia
Annas, Intelligent Virtue; I.M. Crombie, “An Exegetical Point in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,” Mind
71, 284 (1962): 539-40.
Nafsika Athanassoulis, “Acquiring Aristotelian Virtue,” in Oxford Handbook of Virtue, edited by
23

Nancy Snow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

24
Mary Crossan, et al.,“In Search of Virtue: The Role of Virtues, Values, and Character Strengths in
Ethical Decision Making.”
25
Pojman, 147; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; Crossan, et. al., 573-574.
26
In Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, virtue aligns with stage 6, a stage that is rarely
reached by the majority of people. See Moral Reasoning as a Strategic Leader Competency by Martin
Cook for further study.
27
Shafer-Landau, 267.
28
Ibid, 265.
29
Pojman, 122-128.
30
See Shafer-Landau, 169-172.
31
Northouse, 334-335.
32
See Shafer-Landau, 138-150.
33
James R. Rest, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory
34
James Svara, “The Ethical Triangle,” in Combating Corruption, Encouraging Ethics: a Practical Guide
to Management Ethics, 2nd ed., edited by William L. Richter and Frances Burke (Lanham, MD:
American Society for Public Administration, 2007), 22-28. The ethical triangle was originally adapted

L102 Reading B 13 May 2023

for military use in Jack Kem, “Ethical Decision Making: Using the ‘Ethical Triangle.’” Command and
General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, August 2016.
35
Ibid, 26-27.
36
The “Military Leader’s Ethical Reasoning Model” was developed to help visually portray ethical
leaderships as oriented in leader character, in the context of the military professional ethic, in which
character’s influence on moral perception and reasoning is exercised throughout the ethical reasoning
process. It is an adaptation and integration of concepts from ADP 6-22, James Rest’s moral reasoning
model, James Svara’s “Ethical Triangle,” Walter E. Fluker, Ethical Leadership (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press), 2009, and content developed by chaplain ethicists LTC (Ret.) Anthony Randall and MAJ
Jared Vineyard at the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence.
37
Craig E. Johnson, “Ethical Decision Making and Action,” in Ethics in the Workplace: Tools and
Tactics for Organizational Transformation (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2007).

L102 Reading B 14 May 2023

 Appendix A
A Summary of Just War Theory Principles
from Brian Orend, The Morality of War (Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 2006)

Jus Ad Bellum’ War’s Beginnings – Responsibility of Political Leaders:

1. Public Declaration by Proper Authority - The decision to go to war must be publicly declared by
a legitimate authority. This is normally a recognized nation state within the domestic laws of the
nation state. A state may go to war only if the decision is made by the appropriate authorities,
with a nationally recognized and accepted process. This process should include a public,
publishable, communicated statement of intent, either with conditions to avoid conflict or with
which to conclude conflict and sue for peace

2. Just Cause - The decision to wage war must be to redress an actual wrong. Traditionally this has
included self-defence or the recovery of wrongfully seized resources. Article 51 of the UN
Charter addresses self-defence in the contemporary international system. This is clearly the most
important rule, it sets the tone for everything which follows. A state may launch a war only for
the right reason. The just cause most frequently mentioned include self-defense from external
attack. It is often thought that all just causes may be subsumed under the one category of a
response to “a wrong received.”

3. Right Intention - The actor’s intention must be aligned with the just cause of the war. An
intention outside of the original intention calls into question the justness of the cause. A state
must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for
launching a war is not enough, the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be
morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab or irrational motives such as
revenge or ethnic hatred are unacceptable intents. The intention must align with the just cause for
resorting to war4. Probability of Success - The actor must anticipate a reasonable possibility of
war being successful in achieving the objective. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that
doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim of this element of jus ad
bellum is to prevent mass violence that the actor knows will be futile.

4. Probability of Success - The actor must anticipate a reasonable possibility of war being successful
in achieving the objective. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have
no measurable impact on the situation. The aim of this element of jus ad bellum is to prevent
mass violence that the actor knows will be futile. Probability of success and right intention are
two rules of jus ad bellum that are not contained in international law.

5. Last Resort - The actor may resort to war only if it has exhausted all reasonable alternatives to
resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation. War should be the last
practical and reasonable option to effectively resist aggression.

6. Macro Proportionality - The actor must consider the universal benefits accruing from the war and
ensure they outweigh the universal destructive effects. This criterion is codified in Article 22-3 of
the Hague Convention III. A state must, prior to responding to aggression, weigh the universal
good expected to result from the action, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils
expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth” the
costs, may the war proceed. The concept of universality is essential to this rule since states often
only consider their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the
enemy and to any innocent third parties.

L102 Reading B, Appendix A May 2023

Created by and for CGSC
Jus in Bello’ War’s Middle – The Fighting Stage-Responsibility of Military Leaders and Soldiers:

1. Discrimination - Soldiers must make every reasonable effort to discriminate between legitimate
and illegitimate targets, between combatants and non-combatants. Legitimate targets include any
entity that can cause harm to the Soldier. Non-combatants may not be directly targeted and must
have their rights respected.

2. Micro Proportionality - States are to weigh the expected universal goods and benefits against the
expected universal evils or costs in terms of each significant military tactic and maneuver
employed within war. The armed force can only employ a weapon or action if the benefit of the
proposed action seems reasonably proportional to the costs. Inherent in micro-proportionality is
the benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war, which requires providing basic care of captured
enemy Soldiers, due care for civilians, which prohibits directly targeting civilians, not using
prohibited weapons of war, no reprisals against an enemy, and no means or methods considered
“mala in se” i.e., methods or means considered evil in and of themselves. Examples of mala in-se
include rape, genocide, or torture.

‘Jus Post Bellum’ War’s Ending and Transition to Peace - Responsibility of Both Military and
Political Leaders:

There is not universal agreement of the inclusion of jus post bellum as part of JWT and there are
many competing models of how to bring war to a close and what to do upon its completion. Many
ethicists and war theorists do not include the end of wars as part of the tradition. Similarly, international
law and custom do not provide agreed upon principles of jus post bellum. Some military theorists are
beginning to acknowledge the utility of jus post bellum principles. Some considerations for jus post
bellum are retribution vs. rehabilitation, focusing on shared values between opposing sides, the need for a
public peace treaty, official apologies, exchange of POWs, trials for war criminals, demilitarization, and
what to do with aggressor gains. There is also an argument to be made for emphasizing Jus Post Bellum
as a way to help shape the conduct of war, when (moral) ends are kept in view from the initiation of
conflict until its conclusion.

L102 Reading B, Appendix A 2 May 2023

 Appendix B
Additional Ethics Perspectives

While the article addressed the most common Western ethical theories, the following four ethical
perspectives are not uncommon across Western culture, likely finding representation across leaders’
formations. Therefore, it is helpful for leaders to understand how members of their organizations might
approach ethical matters. It is also worth noting that while the military leader ethical reasoning model
primarily utilizes virtue ethics, deontological, and consequentialist considerations for holistic ethical
decision-making, it is also likely that the following perspectives are at play in varying degrees, depending
on individuals involved and the nature of the ethical dilemma encountered.

Moral or Ethical Relativism: Ethics of Social Norms

Right action is dictated by social norms. This perspective is rather old in terms of practice but new in
terms of our analysis and understanding. Cultures have had social norms for millennia, but only in the last
two hundred years have social scientists studied how those norms affect ethical thinking and decisions. In
fact, we all use relativist ethics to some degree. Even in our own nation we make decisions as a culture
over time about what is considered moral. For example, today children as early as elementary school are
taught about concepts such as gender expression, identity, and orientation. This would not have been
thought of fifty years ago, therefore it is vital that when Soldiers are deployed to nations with other
cultures, they quickly learn what constitutes right and wrong within that culture, as dictated by its norms.1

Challenges to ethical relativism. For many philosophers this perspective has limitations. First, every
society has norms which demand scrutiny and which may be distorted. If the society determines what is
morally right, then it becomes impossible to criticize societies’ behaviors. This implies that whatever
behavior a society displays is beyond reproach, preventing moral progress.2 Second, this perspective
slices the problem of ethics into a series of culturally separate worlds or discussions. Cultural relativism
ignores any possibility of universal truths and inhibits adoption of international law and norms.

If conventional ethical relativism is valid, then we cannot legitimately criticize anyone who supports
what we might regard as a heinous act. If, as seems to be the case, valid criticism supposes an objective or
impartial standard then the relativist cannot normally criticize anyone outside their own culture. Adolf
Hitler's genocidal actions, if they are culturally accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother Teresa's
works of mercy. The same can be argued for such issues as racism, genocide, bigotry toward unpopular
minorities, oppression of the poor, and slavery. By accepting that all cultures are equal and none are
superior or inferior, we prevent people from protesting against harmful practices either inside or outside
their own societies.

Moral or Ethical Objectivism: Ethics of Objective Moral Truths

Right action is rooted in universal moral principles. These universal moral principles are always
objectively right or wrong independent of human opinion and valid for all people in all social
environments.

Challenges to moral objectivism. The view is from the eye of the beholder. They see a particular
issue from their own viewpoint, as there is no clear understanding of where the moral principle comes
from. It could be argued that whatever source from which your standard is derived does not bind someone
else from a different view or culture. It also does not account for such varied views within a culture.

Divine Command Theory: Ethics from God

L102 Reading B Appendix B 3 May 2023

 Right action is that which is done in obedience to God’s commands. This religious perspective is also
among the very oldest, with variations prominent in those who hail from one of the Abrahamic religions:
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It helps explain how members of these three monotheistic religions
sometimes think and act on ethical matters. Actions which by any other standard are considered bad (i.e.
unethical) are explained or justified because God has specifically commanded someone to do action or
remain inactive. In some cases, the action is simply the application of a law or principle from Scripture. In
other cases, the action is based upon the individual’s proper motives or understanding that God
specifically commanded him/her to take action. Followers of this approach believe that in every case the
authority of God trumps every other ethical consideration.3

Challenges to divine command theory. Although this perspective is both transparent and
understandable, especially to those who consider themselves to be under the authority of God, it has its
limitations. It is not open to rational inquiry or debate, thus if God commanded it, there is no further
discussion of the subject. This makes it a difficult normative approach within a secular society. Second,
most people face a variety of decisions daily with no Divine guidance. Thus, the field of application of
this approach appears fairly limited. Finally, despite its appearance as a universal ethic under the
dominion of the one almighty God, there is significant disagreement among the various traditions within
monotheism as to exactly what God commands people to do. The decision, for example, of a devout
Christian person to shoot a doctor who performs abortions in America will certainly face condemnation
from other devout Christians who do not accept that God commanded such actions.

Situational Ethics: Ethics of Motive

This perspective is closely related to moral relativism and relatively new to the realm of ethics. An
Episcopal priest by the name of Joseph Fletcher developed this view from his study of Jesus Christ in the
Christian scriptures. The foundation of his system is very simple: the only ethical absolute is unselfish,
absolute, unchanging, universal, and unconditional love for all people. This principle overshadows all
other concerns. If a particular course of action rises from hatred, jealousy, or other polar opposites of
love, it should be abandoned. This view looks carefully at an important component of ethical decision-
making: our motives. Many people in the military have seen someone in authority make decisions based
upon bad motives. This is the only ethical perspective which addresses this problem and forces the
decision maker to reflect upon his or her own heart and motives for making a decision. Likewise, good
leaders must be able to discern when a Soldier’s motives were the best, despite a shortfall in conduct or
performance.4

Challenges to situational ethics. First, it is generally difficult to objectively reflect upon one’s own
motives. We generally believe that our motives are right, especially when we are in charge, and those who
work for us may be very reluctant to challenge motives. Second, from a normative perspective, the ability
to discern anyone’s motives is much more challenging than identifying our obligations, virtues, or
possible consequences of a decision. Third, motives are generally difficult to assess or reward in the
business of ethical decision-making within the military, with the possible exception of criminal motives in
a court-martial. Military members are often recognized for their performance of duty, achievement of
results, or demonstration of virtue—not their motives. The popular proverb, “The road to Hell is paved
with good intentions,” at least tells us that motives alone cannot carry the day in decision-maki
1
Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 7th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth, 2012), 13.
2
James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2012),
19-20.
3
Pojman, 195.
4
Ibid., 224.

L102 Reading B Appendix B 4 May 2023