introduction to defence ethics

Canada

INTRODUCTION TO DEFENCE ETHICS 2nd edition

STUDENT MANUAL

November 2005

Table of Contents 2

Introduction to Defence Ethics -2nd ed. November 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages PREFACE 3 ABBREVIATIONS 5 INTRODUCTION 9 PART I: ETHICS AND THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM 13 A Look at Definition 14 A Democratic Nation and Ethics 15 Private/Public Distinction 17 Ethics for Defence 20 A Values Based Program “Statement of Defence Ethics” for DND/CF Duty with Honour: the Military Ethos Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service Defence Ethics and Compliance PART II: ETHICAL DECISION MAKING 33 A Basic Decision Making Model 34 Judgement (Stage 2) 34 (1) General Assessment of the Situation (2) Ethical Considerations Systematic Approaches to Ethics Ethical Dilemmas (3) Options and Risks (4) Choosing Committing to Action (Stage 3) 42 “YaBut” Three Levels of Ethical Obligations The DEP Ethical Decision Making Model 45 PART III: CONCLUDING REMARKS 49 Ethics Check 50 Voicing Ethical Concerns 51 ANNEXES Annex A A Method for Case Studies 53 Annex B Cases 59 Annex C Glossary 63 Annex D Bibliography 73 Annex E Contacts 77

Preface 3


Preface to 2nd Edition

The mandate of the Defence Ethics Program includes a significant role for ethics training. A primary concern of the DEP is to foster the conditions that are conducive to developing and maintaining a healthy ethical culture in Defence. The Introduction to the Defence Ethics course represents an important and necessary contribution to fulfilling both requirements. The Introduction to the Defence Ethics (2nd edit) course was developed by the Defence Ethics Program (DEP) under the authority of the DEP Program Authority, the Chief of Review Services. It is a Program Authority course designed for personnel who require a basic and introductory level of knowledge of ethics as it applies to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. If the course content is used to satisfy training requirements identified in the Ethics Plans of Environmental Commanders or NDHQ Group Principals, either in the National Capital Region (NCR) or in other regions, some tailoring of the content may be necessary. Participants should be advised accordingly.

The original content of the course was the result of a joint effort between DEP and the Director Recruiting, Education and Training. It was developed by Mrs. D. Dolan, a training development expert and Major D. Beauchamp (PhD), DEP Research and Development. The contents were developed in accordance with the general principles of the Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES).

This manual contains all the material to be covered in an Introduction to Defence Ethics (2nd edition) one-day course. It also contains in the Annexes supplementary information on ethics, decision making, and the Defence Ethics Program. A Glossary has been added to the 2nd edition to provide participants with an explanation and a clarification of key concepts. The 2nd edition of the course manual was produced by the DEP Research and Development Section under the direction of Major D. Beauchamp (PhD).

Delivery of the Introduction to the Defence Ethics (2nd edit) course in the National Capital Region tends to be done under contract. In today’s environment, contracting for instructor services rather than using DND or CF instructional resources is a fiscal and human resources necessity. It is recognized and accepted that instructors will differ in instructional styles and in what they believe should be stressed and not stressed. The instructor for the course in the National Capital Region is expected to present at a minimum all the essential material of the course and to select from the supplementary information what contributes to the specific needs of the particular group being instructed. The minimum essential material is identified as follows:

(1) All material contained in the figures throughout the text; (2) Essential parts of the text have been highlighted in bold script; and (3) A reasonable presentation of the meaning of all titles, subtitles and text

highlighted in bold script (excluding the Annexes) based on the material found in the manual.

Preface 4


Although the instructor is free to use or not use the PowerPoint slides for all the figures in the manual provided as a teaching aid, he or she must ensure that the concepts contained in the figures are covered in class. If participants observe what they consider to be important omissions in the delivery of the course material, they should note these omissions on the Course Evaluation Sheet provided at the end of every course. However, if they feel that the Course Evaluation Sheet is not sufficient for reporting their concerns, they are asked to send their comments directly to the Director Defence Ethics Program.

The manual is intended to serve both for in-class use and as a reference document.

It provides a list of contacts in the Defence Ethics Program, which includes personnel in the Program Management Section administering the Conflict of Interest and Post Employment measures. The manual also suggests further readings in a selected bibliography. In summary, participants can expect to find in this manual all of the material required for the course and a useful source of information for the future.

Queries or comments on the in-course material, course delivery or course manual can be directed to the Defence Ethics Program - Research and Development Section, Chief of Review Services, NDHQ - Tel. (613) 992-7451; Fax (613) 992-5763.

Figure-1

DEP Web Site

www.dnd.ca/ethics

Abbreviations 5


ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations 6


ABBREVIATIONS This following contains a list of the abbreviations that appear in the text, including a short description of their meaning. CF - Canadian Forces - The armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consisting of one Service called the Canadian Forces. The CF operates as an institutional entity separate from the Department of National Defence, in a relationship described in the National Defence Act (NDA), and must work effectively with public servants as an integral part of a single defence team. The Constitution Act of 1867 provides for establishing armed forces at the federal level. Their command, control and administration are set out in the NDA, and the Government of Canada determines their mandate, mission and roles in the defence of Canada through legislation and Cabinet direction. CFITES - Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System - The Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES) is modelled after the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) that is the process used by Instructional System Design (ISD). ISD or SAT is concerned with the identification of training requirements based on the analysis of job performance requirements obtained from experts in the job to be performed. DAOD - Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAODs) are the documents that spell out corporate administrative policies and instructions that are specific to the DND and CF. DAODs supplement higher level direction such as Acts of the Parliament of Canada and Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&Os). They may also supplement directives from Treasury Board and/or other central agencies. As Orders, they apply to CF members and, as Directives, they apply to DND employees. DEP - Defence Ethics Program - The DEP is a values-based program that aims to foster the understanding, acceptance, and practice of ethical principles taking into consideration the unique circumstances and requirements of the DND and the CF. A values-based approach in the public sphere places importance on the core ethical values and principles intrinsic to an organization, including respect for the law, and uses them as a guide for professional conduct, rather than merely focusing on compliance with rules. The DEP provides a visible and expressed ethical focus for the DND and the CF. The DEP has concentrated its efforts on ensuring ethical decision-making according to the highest standards and on maintaining the ethical integrity of the DND and its employees and of the CF and its members. DND - Department of National Defence - In the National Defence Act, Section 3 creates DND as a "department of the Government of Canada over which the Minister of National Defence appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside." Section 4 of the Act sets out the duties of the Minister as follows: "to manage and direct the Canadian Forces and all matters relating to national defence," having specific responsibility for: "the construction and maintenance of all defence establishments and

Abbreviations 7


works for the defence of Canada; and "research relating to the defence of Canada and to the development of and improvements in materiel." DND exists to carry out the work assigned to the Minister of National Defence, so the department's relationship with the CF is that of a support system. LCC - Learning and Career Centre - The LCC provides information and services concerning learning and career development. Their objective is to foster the promotion of continuous learning within DND through the provision of learning advisory, career development and training services to all DND civilian employees and military personnel. The LCC offers many personalized and group services as well as programs that meet individual training and career needs. MSE Ops - Mobile Support Equipment Operators - MSE Ops are identified as professional drivers that operate a diversity of vehicle types and equipment, and must undergo extensive and a high level of training to obtain their driving and operating qualifications. Transportation as a component of Logistics is a support function embracing the planning and implementation of the movement of forces, personnel, and materiel (stores). MSE in DND fulfills three main roles, which include operational mobility, operational support and administrative support. NDHQ - National Defence Headquarters - The emplacement where the offices of the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and his staff, are located. National Defence Headquarters is located at 101 Colonel By Drive in Ottawa, Ontario. PER - Personnel Evaluation Report - A Personnel Evaluation Report is a report that is given to a civilian employee by his or her supervisor every year for the purposes of evaluating the employee and providing feedback. PO - Performance Objective - Performance Objectives are statements that specify what a person undergoing training must be able to do in terms of observable performance. A PO also includes the conditions that influence job performance and the standard against which that performance is measured. QR&O - Queens Regulations and Orders - The Governor in Council, the Treasury Board, the Minister of National Defence ("the Minister") and the Chief of the Defence Staff all have the power to make regulations or orders governing the CF, their activities and operations, or certain aspects thereof. The most important subordinate laws with respect to the military justice system are the provisions contained in Volume 2 of the Queen’s Regulations & Orders for the Canadian Forces ("QR&O"). The QR&O significantly amplify and expand upon topics and provisions found in the National Defence Act. TSD - Technical Services Detachment - Their mission is to provide Technical Services support to the CF and DND units and personnel throughout the National Capital Region and to other specified units in support of their operations and activities.

Abbreviations 8


UEC - Unit Ethics Coordinator - Unit Ethics Coordinators are located in each Level 1 organization. They are responsible for executing the Ethics Plan of their Level 1 Advisors as it applies to their unit. Level 1 organizations have Level 1 Ethics Coordinators who are responsible to their Level 1 Advisors (Commanders of Commands and Group Principals) for providing guidance, direction and input on DEP implementation; providing advice to personnel within their organization on ethical issues; monitoring and reporting on the accomplishment of program objectives within their organization; working closely with public affairs officers to incorporate ethics material in internal communications, including the dissemination of information on ethics policies, issues and trends; and ensuring the incorporation of an ethics component into business plans, training, orientation and educational programs. Level 1 Ethics Coordinators are participating members of the DEP Ethics Advisory Board and have direct access to their respective Level 1 Advisor to provide oversight, advice and implementation support.

Introduction 9


INTRODUCTION

Introduction 10


Aim The aim of this course is to gain knowledge of the complexities of Defence ethics

and its application. To that end, the course covers the meaning of ethics in government and in Defence; it examines what that implies for the Canadian Forces and its members and the Department of National Defence and its employees. It does not presuppose any prior knowledge or study of ethics. However, it is recognized that for some, the course may represent an opportunity to do a review of his or her understanding of what’s involved in ethics in the public sphere – a periodic review of ethics is recommended - while at the same time gaining new knowledge concerning his or her role in a Defence environment. Purpose

A primary purpose of the course is to contribute to the ethical behaviour of Defence personnel in the accomplishment of their responsibilities. Ethical behaviour is greatly influenced by how each of us answers the question: What’s the right thing to do? By exploring different ways that this question can be answered, CF members and DND employees can improve the effectiveness of their efforts to do the right thing. An important part of this process is gaining a better understanding of Defence ethics and of the high ethical standards expected of Defence personnel. Additionally, the course will make personnel aware of some of the factors allowing leadership at all levels of the organization to contribute to a healthy ethical climate in the CF and DND.

An indirect purpose of the course is to assist CF and DND personnel in answering the question: What kind of persons should Canadian Defence personnel be? As research shows, the answer to this question is necessarily linked to the answers provided to the question: What’s the right thing to do? Remarks Understanding the implications of the answers to the question, “What’s the right thing to do?” is one of the main themes running through the course. Although the question focuses on doing, to answer the question requires us to work back through the ethical decision making process to the ethical values at work in the doing. Thus, our first task will be to identify in general terms what we mean by ethics in Defence. Because ethics does not exist in a vacuum, its practice for Canadian Defence personnel must be seen in the context of Canada. As a democracy, we are a nation that possesses a deep respect for human rights and freedoms. We are a nation that has placed ethics at the heart of its democratic ideals and it should not be surprising that ethics is essential to formulating the fundamental principles of our democratic society.

The practice of ethics in our democracy requires us to draw a reasonable distinction between our private lives and our life within the public domain. Accordingly, the ethical principles and obligations outlined in the Statement of Defence Ethics, in Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada, as well as in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service affect personnel primarily in their roles related to the public sphere. The exercise of discretionary judgement by personnel working in the public

Introduction 11


sphere is inevitable today. In gaining a good understanding of how the decision making process works, we can enhance our ability to exercise our judgement rationally, fairly, and courageously, while fully respecting our wider commitments to humanity. The course also stresses that nothing happens until someone takes action. As a result, participants will discuss some of the challenges that we all face when we want to move from a rationally determined “best” decision to the action that should follow from that decision. Finally, they will consider some of the factors allowing leadership at all levels of the organization to create an ethical climate that makes it easier for personnel to act on their answer to the question “What’s the right thing to do? ” Course Objectives At the end of the course, it is expected that a participant will: - Know the main ideas involved in ethics as it applies to Defence; - Know the Statement of Defence Ethics and its content; - Be able to explain its relationship to the military ethos and the Values and Ethics Code

for the Public Service; - Know and apply a basic model of ethical decision-making; - Know some of the general conceptions used to justify ethical decisions; - Know different types of ethical dilemmas; - Explain what is entailed in moving from decision to action; - Know means of contributing to a healthy ethical climate; and - Enhance decision making capacities by practicing ethical decision making Course Management The course has been designed to meet the needs of Defence personnel (Regular Force, Reserve Force, and civilians) and is meant to provide them with the opportunity to learn about the Defence Ethics Program (DEP) and to help them make ethical decisions. The practice of Ethics in the public sphere requires an understanding of basic ethical concepts. To the extent possible, these concepts are best learned through dialogue and discussion. Consequently, the instructional method used in this course relies on guided discussions and some case study exercises supported by the instructor’s presentation of important Defence ethics concepts. As participants, it is expected that you will actively participate in guided discussions and case study exercises by: a. Sharing your agreement or disagreement with the syndicate / class; and

b. Expressing and constructively challenging alternative points of view.

REMEMBER

Challenge the idea, not the person.

Introduction 12


Ethics and the Defence Ethics Program 13


PART I

ETHICS

AND

THE DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM



A LOOK AT DEFINITION Providing a definition of ethics in the public sphere that would be acceptable to most professionals in the field continues to be an elusive goal. One source of the difficulty in defining ethics is partly because there are many in our society who believe that ethics is strongly linked to morality and that morality is ultimately a matter of personal religious belief. However, in a democratic society, no one religion and its set of beliefs can be imposed on other members of society. In fact, there are a multiplicity of religious belief systems practiced in our democratic society and their adherents must respect the demands of democracy and the constraints it imposes on them when they act in their capacity of citizens. Thus, the meaning of the term ethics should be seen as overlapping only partly with the traditional meaning of the term morality, a term that will continue to carry the weight of religious belief systems.

The problem of defining ethics in the public sphere is also partly the result of a traditional academic distinction between ethics and morality, where ethics is restricted to a “study of” what is right and wrong and morality deals with “standards” and “codes of behaviours”. However, today, the literature in academia and outside academia is redrawing the boundaries between ethics and morality. In this workshop, the two terms may at times be used interchangeably, although when a distinction is necessary to avoid confusion, the term ethics will be preferred when referring to any aspect of an individual’s role in the public sphere and the term morality will be favoured when referring to zones protected in the private sphere.

In addition, the task of defining applied and practical ethics adds a layer of

complexity to the attempt to define ethics. In an academic environment the justification and the in-depth study of traditional and contemporary ethical theories receives priority. In the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence our primary focus is the applied and practical aspects of ethics in the public sphere. The requirement to be applied and practical necessarily dictates what should be studied and what concepts should be stressed.

Taking these points into consideration, the Defence Ethics Program

“defines” ethics as being concerned with:

a. Establishing the principles and obligations that govern the right actions and practices of institutions and individuals in society,

b. Determining right and wrong, and c. Choosing to do what is right.

This definition invites further clarification. Both the ideas of principles and obligations in this definition of ethics are related to the idea of value. Generally speaking, a value is an enduring belief about what is important in life. Values can be instruments to accomplish ends and goals (instrumental values) or intrinsic to the important ends and goals of life (intrinsic values). A principle is a fundamental value that reflects a recognizable pattern of attitudes and behaviours that has a fairly large



scope and is generally valued by individuals, societies, and humanity. In addition, a principle contains within itself an imperative to act in a manner consistent with a fundamental value. An example of a fundamental principle is the first principle in the Statement of Defence Ethics: “Respect the dignity of all persons.” Many of the common fundamental values that we are familiar with are more narrow in scope than principles and do not contain within themselves an imperative to act in a certain manner. For example, the value ‘honesty’ describes a fairly recognizable pattern of attitudes and behaviours that is generally valued and is rightfully considered a fundamental value. The value ‘honesty’ becomes an obligation that carries with it an imperative to act in a certain manner when it is contained within a larger commitment. Thus, all individuals who become government personnel are committed thereby to the obligations that are related to the public role that they assume. As a result, all government personnel accept an obligation to practice the fundamental value of honesty by assuming their public role. The obligation to practice honesty is one of the six basic obligations of military and civilian personnel contained in the Statement of Defence Ethics. As can be seen, obligations are different from principles and fundamental values but necessarily rooted in them.

To grasp what is involved in our definition of ethics, it may be helpful to imagine a cultural ecosystem where every action in a society is part of a large system of interdependent actions. It operates in a manner similar to an ecosystem, where any action or lack of action has repercussions throughout the ecosystem. In a cultural ecosystem, any action or lack of action by individuals or institutions would directly or indirectly affect human beings. According to our definition of ethics , this state of affairs would necessarily involve ethics to some degree. Visualising ethics as working within a cultural ecosystem can helps us understand how the Somalia and the Airborne Regiment incidents involving the Canadian Forces in the mid-1990s could have had such a strong and negative effect both within and outside the Defence community in Canada. Conversely, if we imagine ethics as being exercised within a cultural ecosystem, then a renewal of ethics in government will have a correspondingly positive effect on the Defence community. To the extent that the Defence Ethics Program’s definition of ethics adequately reflects the general meaning of ethics in our democratic society, it has far reaching consequences for the role and the application of ethics in the public sphere.

A DEMOCRATIC NATION AND ETHICS Canada is a democracy that treats the respect for human rights and freedoms as fundamental to its way of life. As Canadians, we are committed to societal, cultural and political principles and obligations entailed by this way of life. They are expressed in what we do and in the justifications we provide for our actions and practices. The relative peace and stability that we enjoy in Canada is a tribute to the existence of such fundamental values. Many of these fundamental values are ethical values. The defining characteristics of our democracy produce a societal, cultural and political environment that supports and nourishes its fundamental values. Together, the fundamental ethical



values constitute an ethics of democracy that operates both at the individual and the organizational levels.

Figure-2

Fundamental Values of a Democracy

Respect for human dignityFreedoms (Religion, etc.)Rights (Language, privacy, etc.)Representative government Rule of Law

Canadians accept that there are fundamental values (figure 2) that should govern the actions and practices of institutions and individuals in a democratic society. One of these values is expressed in article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The same ideas of fundamental freedoms and rights is found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fundamental value that all human beings are equal in dignity requires that a person’s worth be measured primarily in terms of their humanity, and not primarily in terms of economic, efficiency, or other values; nor primarily in terms of their membership in some group within society. We can consider this fundamental value as a principle of basic equality requiring that everybody in a democratic society be treated as equal in dignity in all decisions that affect what they can be and do as members of that society. It is this meaning that Canadians attach to the principle of basic equality that finds its equivalent in all other democratic countries that have given priority to the respect for human dignity and to human rights and freedoms.

The idea expressed by the principle of basic equality is so fundamental to our understanding of a democratic society that it is usually an unspoken assumption of what we believe can and should be sanctioned by a democratic society. However, because this principle is so obvious to us, we can lose sight of the fact that all decisions within a democratic society must pass the test of satisfying it. It is worth taking a little time to discuss its impact on what we believe is consistent with a certain way of life in a democratic society.

To understand our use of the expression “equality in dignity”, it may help to contrast it with what is involved in natural and social inequalities. To believe in a basic “equality in dignity” of persons does not mean that we deny the existence of natural inequalities between individuals. Physical and mental capabilities are not identical in everyone. For example, some people are gifted in music while others are gifted in



painting; however, only a few individuals are gifted in both music and painting. Some people are good at competitive sports, like hockey, while others excel in mental competitions, like chess; however, very few of individuals are gifted in both. Similarly, treating people as basically “equal in dignity” does not mean denying or rejecting social differences between individuals. For example, the nature of our society will generate social differences because only a few can enjoy the power of public office or have private sector careers that demand higher education. History has shown that people can become victims of a fickle economy or have to struggle to find work in new fields as the jobs related to the training and experience they possess disappear.

Inequalities may also result from legitimate limitations imposed by society on individuals. For example, section one of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that it “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” (Italics added) In their day-to-day lives, Canadians will generally not experience equally the impact of such imposed limitations. In the case of individuals found guilty of breaking the laws of the land, the sentences they receive inevitably produce social inequalities. However, even in this last case, the fact that all of us in a democratic society are to be treated as basically “equal in dignity” places limits on the kinds of sentences that can be imposed on persons found guilty by our court system. For example, any person found guilty of a crime cannot be subjected to torture or cruel and degrading treatment. There is a presumption in a democratic society that everyone must be treated with respect as a result of their basic “equality in dignity”, despite the natural and social inequalities that exist (financial, power, education, intelligence, abilities, etc.), many of which are to a large extent necessary or inevitable. Alternatively, none of these inequalities could serve to justify behaviours or practices by Canadians that would have the effect of neutralising our fundamental obligation to respect the dignity of a person or, worse, of transgressing or condoning disrespect of that dignity.

In conclusion, the very nature of a democracy provides us with a source of ethical

principles and values. These principles, like “Respect the dignity of all persons”, and the related obligations express values in our democracy that are binding on all Canadians. This is especially true for Canadians who, like Defence personnel, are in roles that represent government, whether on Canadian soil or abroad. PRIVATE/PUBLIC DISTINCTION It is necessary that all members of the Canadian Forces and employees of DND distinguish between two different spheres of their lives: everything related to their personal and family life belongs to the Private and Non-public sphere and everything related to their roles within government and public institutions belongs to the Public sphere. For the purposes of this course, “public” refers to any organization that is part of government and all other institutions that are generally considered to be governmental in



nature, whereas “non-public” refers to commercial organizations in the private sector and non-profit organizations and institutions. Most Canadians distinguish fairly easily between these different aspects of their lives since each sphere has many distinct characteristics.

Figure-3

Two Spheres of Ethics

CF members & DND employees

Private & Non-public Public

///////////////////////////////////

However, distinguishing the two spheres should not lead us to the conclusion that they are totally separate and independent of each other. There exists an inevitable tension between the public and the private/personal spheres, a tension which affects CF members and DND employees. Figure 3 provides a useful illustration of the relationship between the two spheres. On the one hand we act in the name of the government and are thereby endowed with a public trust, while on the other hand we are citizens and employees with legitimate private and personal claims on the government. Although most individuals treat these two spheres as fairly autonomous dimensions of their lives, there is a continuity between the values and beliefs held in these two spheres. For example, there is a continuity between our sense of being honest and keeping promises in our personal lives and in our public sector roles. Although the meaning of those values does not change radically as we move from one sphere to the other, we regularly change the weight assigned to specific values, beliefs, and obligations when making decisions in one sphere or the other. For example, most of us accept the profit motive as a legitimate value in our society, understood as a reasonable return for the risks taken. Although we may accept and/or tolerate it as a legitimate value for business institutions, we tend to look dimly on that motive if given the same weight by a member of the family in dealing with other members of the family in the home. Ethics and the Private Sphere

Whenever members of the CF or employees of DND act as individuals outside their public roles, they are considered to be in their private/personal life. The importance of the private/personal sphere is attested to by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects, as the highest law in the land, many of the values found in this sphere. Our “private” life includes all actions taken independently as individuals, with family, or with friends on matters that affect our lives. It also refers to what we do as members of private and non-public organizations, such as a religious institution or some



other non-profit organization. Thus, the private and personal does not include, strictly speaking, anything an individual does in his or her official role in government.

We all have our own personal and private view of what is right and wrong, of

what is the right thing to do. The principles that govern the actions and practices of individuals in the sphere of “private/personal” life can vary significantly depending on whether they were derived mainly from experiences in one’s home environment, ethnic group, religious up-bringing, education or general life experiences. In as much as we each possess a specific and individual set of values and beliefs that are more or less systematically organized, we could be said to possess a “private morality”. For individuals who are members of a group in the private and non-public sphere, they could identify a specific set of values and beliefs that are more or less systematically organized based on their membership in the group. In this case, it could be said that members of the group possesses a “shared private morality”. This second type of “private” morality is clearly demonstrated in the case of membership in a religious organization, where a set of values, beliefs, and practices is shared between members of the organization. As a result, individuals who possess both a “private morality” and a “shared private morality” will often experience a tension between the demands of both sets of values and beliefs. For example, it is not uncommon for individuals who practice a religion to find that their own individual set of beliefs do not exactly correspond to the official religious beliefs advocated by their religion. As can be seen from these few comments, the scope of a “private” morality can be vast and complex. Ethics and the Public Sphere

There are many signs that a rough consensus on values and beliefs exists within our democracy. Some of these values and beliefs are fundamental and are reflected in constitutional documents that define Canada and its democratic reality. Ethics in the public sphere refers to beliefs, values, principles, and obligations that are shared by all Canadians as members of a democracy and that define what is right and wrong in the public sphere. For our purposes, we will treat the values, beliefs, and practices that provide a foundation for our Canadian reality and that help us define right and wrong as forming a kind of “public” ethics that can and should guide us in doing the right thing.

All actions related to positions at any level of government (local, municipal, provincial, and federal), including positions at all levels of the organizations that constitute them, are considered actions performed in a public role. It follows that actions performed by military personnel while on a mission in a foreign country or by civilian personnel carrying out job related tasks in a government office in Canada are actions performed in a public role. What is not so obvious – until we think about it - is the impact that our public role can have on what we do in the “private” sphere. For example, governments have placed reasonable constraints on what we as individuals can do in the “private” sphere if our actions could create a conflict of interest with our public role. As a result, an employee of the DND cannot be instrumental in providing a member of his or her family with a personal services contract. Of course, many of the same constraints apply to military personnel. However, in the case of military personnel, there



are additional factors to be considered, since they do not cease to be members of the Canadian Forces when they step into their “private” sphere. For example, although public servants can engage in outside employment, military personnel can only do so with the authorization of their Commanding Officer and to the extent that such employment does not interfere with service needs. (QR&O 19.42) Finally, military personnel are categorically prohibited from getting involved in political activity at the federal and provincial levels of government. (QR&O 19.44) ETHICS FOR DEFENCE

The CF and DND are public organizations within a democracy. Although distinct legally, together, they constitute and carry out Canadian Defence. Accordingly, some legislation, policies and regulations apply only to the CF and its military members and others only to the DND and public servants. There is, however, much legislation that applies to both organizations and their members, in addition to a range of government policies that also apply to the Defence team. Although in principle the CF operates as a separate organizational entity from the DND, in practice “they must work effectively with public servants as an integral part of a single defence team.” (Duty with Honour, p. 12)

What must be emphasized is not that our nation has Defence institutions but rather that these institutions are shaped and rendered legitimate by the democracy that brings them into being. The very nature of Canada as a nation completely determines the type of military it will have. Being a democracy determines both the ethically acceptable purposes for which Canada’s military power may be used and the ethically acceptable means available to its military in fulfilling those purposes. For example, Canadians expected that Canada’s military force in Bosnia would not be used to attain objectives outside its mandate without prior governmental approval of a change to the original mandate. In considering whether or not to approve these objectives – or any objectives requiring military force - the Canadian government will respect the ethical, legal and political constraints that go hand in hand with being a democracy. Thus, it is unlikely that the government would ever agree to the use of its military force in support of an initiative whose success depended on the transgression of the basic human rights of the citizens of a country. A Values Based Program The CF and DND have adopted an ethics program that is values based: the Defence Ethics Program. A comprehensive values based program in the public sphere maintains a dynamic balance between judgements based on compliance and judgements based on ethical values. The distinction between the two types of judgements is illustrated in Figure-4. It shows that compliance is a zone of values that has been regulated in balance with a zone of values that has not been regulated. Although a values approach places a heavy burden on an individual’s judgement, it does not eliminate the need for compliance. It treats compliance as a zone of values governed by rules, regulations, and laws enacted by legitimate authority that has the effect of reducing an individual’s discretion concerning what to do in selected situations that concern the



public interest. For example, compliance in the case of conflict of interest measures serves the positive purpose of ensuring that the application of the measures will be fair and equitable across the public sphere.

Figure-4

A Dynamic Balance

VALUES

COMPLIANCE

To Comply implies

•Conduct by legal standards, rules and regulations

•Usually rules-based codes that stipulate right and wrong

Priority to Ethics implies

•Conduct by Ethical Values, including Rule of Law

•Usually values and ethics statements, codes and programs to help members deal with more complex ethical issues

To ensure a common policy approach on subjects that should similarly

affect both CF members and DND employees, the CF and the DND jointly produce Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAODs are an order for CF members and directives to DND employees.

Figure-5

Values & Ethics: Common Application

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives(DAOD)

An Order that applies to members of the Canadian Forces

and a Directive that applies to employees

of the Department of National Defence

There are several DAODs, relating to Ethics in the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence, that have been issued in support of the Defence Ethics Program.



The following DAODs define the Defence Ethics Program, its mandate and the authorities and responsibilities attached to it:

DAOD 7023-0: Defence Ethics DAOD 7023-1: Defence Ethics Program

The Defence Ethics Program rests on a foundation provided by Duty with

Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. At the heart of the DEP is the Statement of Defence Ethics, a concise statement that captures essential elements of the Canadian military ethos and the values and ethics of public service. The Statement of Defence Ethics represents a core and a minimum set of ethical values necessary for military and civilian personnel to work effectively and harmoniously together towards the purposes of Canadian Defence. In addition, the DEP has also been designed to be fully responsive to the unique organizational cultures within the CF and the DND. For example, the DEP has taken into consideration both that the army, navy, and air force cultures possess characteristics that make them all fundamentally military and that they also possess characteristics that reflect significant differences.

Figure-6

The New Context

Are we less ethical than those who preceded us

or has the context changed?

Some may wonder why we need an ethics program at this point in our history. They may wonder if it is because we are considered less ethical today than those who preceded us? DEP argues that the need for an ethics program in the CF and DND today is not because we are less ethical than our predecessors but that it is motivated and justified by changes that have occurred in the context in which military and civilian personnel carry out their responsibilities.

Significant changes in society, in technology, in government and in our

organizations have contributed to creating over time an environment in which making choices and reaching decisions has become more complicated and complex than in the past. These changes are both internal and external to the CF and DND. The main changes are illustrated in Figure-7:



Figure-7

The Changing Context

EXTERNAL

Technological Revolution

Canadian Society

Transparency

INTERNAL

Organizational Structure/Process

Operations

Strategic Person

• Technological Revolution – Changes in the field of computers and information technology are probably the most noticeable to Canadians. Computers, the Internet, information technology, all have dramatically changed how we carry out our responsibilities in the CF and the DND.

• Canadian Society - Although sometimes taken for granted, the changes

produced in society by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by Immigration, amongst others, are just as pervasive as the changes produced by information technology. They are redefining the public interest and, correspondingly, what is expected of the CF and the DND.

• Transparency – There now exists a heightened emphasis on access to

information, media scrutiny and the use of technology to provide Canadians with a window on government decision-making, including what happens in the CF and the DND.

• Changing organizational and management structure – The CF and the

DND leadership and management structures have been de-layered and have pushed decision-making further down in the organization.

• Changing Context of Operations – Canadian military operations have

increased in number and reached a high level of intensity, scope and complexity when compared to most of the second half of the 20th century.

• The “strategic person” – Changes in technology and organizational

structure and increased transparency have contributed to the emergence of a new phenomenon: the “strategic person”. CF and DND personnel



anywhere in the world and at any level of the organisation can now make decisions that can be broadcast by satellite worldwide and live and, as a result, significantly influence policy and events at the strategic level.

Statement of Defence Ethics

It is reasonable to expect that a “public ethics” present in the foundation of the institutions of democracy should also serve as the ultimate justification for any core set of ethical values for Defence. As a matter of law, the CF, the DND, and Defence personnel are required to ensure that Defence values are aligned with fundamental Canadian values expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any core set of ethical values for Defence must give proper weight to the ethical values that underlie the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. However, ethics for Defence requires more.

In response to a requirement to be more explicit and transparent about the ethics it

practices, the CF and its members and the DND and its employees have produced a Statement of Defence Ethics. (Figure-8) The Statement incorporates essential Defence ethical values from both the military ethos in Duty With Honour and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. It provides a minimum set of ethical principles and obligations for military and civilian Defence personnel that allows them to work effectively and harmoniously as a team while at the same time ensuring the ethical and professional integrity of Defence.

Figure-8

As stated in the preamble, the Statement of Defence Ethics makes public a core set

of ethical values to which the institutions of Defence in Canada are committed and by which they accept to be judged. It respects the unique nature of the CF and the DND while at the same time ensuring a common framework of values that can guide and support members of the Defence Team in all their professional activities. Thus, the Statement of Defence Ethics provides a minimum set of basic values to support and enhance the ability of military and civilian personnel to work together harmoniously.



The Statement of Defence Ethics contains three general ethical principles and six basic obligations.

Figure-9

Defence Ethics Principles

Obey and SupportLawful Authority

Respect the dignity of all persons

Serve Canada before self

Organization

Humanity

Nation

The three principles (Figure-9) are presented in a hierarchy of ethical importance: first come our general obligations to humanity, then obligations to our nation, and finally to lawful authority. The hierarchy of principles is justified by the nature of Canada as a democracy. For most Canadians, the law, the good of the nation, and a fundamental respect for humanity should always be properly aligned. We expect that our laws generally represent a reasonable and practical formulation of what is good for Canada and Canadians and, at the same time, allow us to be good global citizens. Of course, and most importantly, when some of our laws no longer seem to reflect either a fundamental respect for humanity or what is good for the nation, we have recourse to democratic mechanisms through which we can bring about changes to these laws. It is interesting to note that history teaches us how changes in the way we deal with fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada have often reflected changes on how we understand what is meant by “Respect the dignity of all persons”.

By arguing for a hierarchy of these three ethical principles, the Defence Ethics

Program simply expands on the idea that we are all called upon to exercise our public roles by respecting the fundamental values that provide a foundation to our democratic society and its institutions. It argues that there is a presumption in Defence that the exercise of lawful authority is carried out in a manner that provides service to Canada ahead of satisfying private and personal interests, and that service to Canada is done in the spirit of fully respecting the dignity of all persons.

The Statement of Defence Ethics also contains six core defence ethical obligations: integrity, loyalty, courage, honesty, fairness, and responsibility. There is no hierarchy established among these six ethical obligations. In other words, they have equal weight and, all else being equal; each one must be respected. These obligations embrace fundamental values that run through the military as a profession, the public-service, and our democratic society. These six ethical obligations represent a minimum



set of core ethical obligations that are meant to allow military and civilian personnel to work harmoniously and effectively as a Defence Team. However, it is recognized that these values are necessary but not sufficient to allow each member of the Defence Team to fully carry out their assigned roles. For example, duty and fighting spirit are fundamental values that the CF must cultivate to a very high degree in its military personnel if they are to successfully complete their missions. Similarly, objectivity and impartiality are values that the DND must foster to a very high degree in its public servants if they are to be effective agents of the government in their dealings with the private sector.

A poster copy of the Statement of Defence Ethics can be downloaded and printed from the DEP web site: http://ethics.mil.ca/expectations/statement_e.asp.

Duty with Honour: The Military Ethos

Duty with Honour: The profession of Arms in Canada is “a defining document for Canada’s profession of arms.”

Figure-10

It provides all members of the CF with a clear definition of what it means to be a Canadian military professional. The profession of arms in Canada exhibits four main attributes: Responsibility, Expertise, Identity, and Ethos. The Summary of Duty with Honour contains the essentials of the main document and gives us a brief description of Responsibility, Expertise and Identity (pp. 11-13):

“ Responsibility: Collectively, members of Canada’s profession of arms have a core responsibility to the government and the people of Canada to defend the nation and its interests.” “Expertise: Expertise within Canada’s profession of arms derives from a deep and comprehensive understanding of the theory and practice of armed conflict in its many forms, ranging from war fighting to humanitarian missions.” “Identity: Military members are indeed part of Canadian society, a fact reflected



in the Canadian values incorporated in the military ethos, and at the same time they have a sense of a separate, distinct identity. Professional identity is differentiated in a number of ways, and the realities of combat and operations at sea, on land and in the air mean there will always be necessary differences in the way that the military culture is expressed in each of the Environments.” Duty with Honour describes the CF military ethos as “the foundation upon

which the legitimacy, effectiveness and honour of the Canadian Forces depend.” Figure-11 shows that the CF military ethos draws from three main sources. It includes first and foremost basic Canadian values that provide a firm foundation and legitimacy to Canada’s profession of arms. It identifies military service values essential to its effectiveness as a profession of arms. Finally, it singles out core ethical values - Canadian military values - necessary for CF members to carry out their duty with honour.

Figure-11

CF Military EthosBeliefs and

Expectations about Military Service

Canadian Military Values

Canadian Values, Expectations and

Beliefs

• Duty• Loyalty• Integrity• Courage

• Democratic Principles

• Peace, Order and Good Government

• Rights and Freedoms

• Respect the Dignity of all Persons

• Obey and support lawful authority

• Unlimited Liability• Fighting Spirit• Teamwork• Discipline

Sustaining

Military Ethos

PERFORM

DUTY

WITH

HONOUR

THREE ETHOS COMPONENTS INSTITUTIONALIZATION GOAL

Essential for Military

Effectiveness

Philosophy of Service shaped by Canadian Values

EthosShapesProfessionalism

Governs

Conduct

•Commitment of leadership

•Honouring the past

•Guides education and training

•Supportive policies

•Supportive environmental sub-cultures

The military ethos serves to shape and guide conduct, and ensures the profession’s continued legitimacy as a vital national institution. It clarifies how members should view their responsibilities and helps them express their unique military identity to others. The Canadian military ethos represents the spirit that binds the other three attributes of the profession of arms: responsibility, expertise and identity.”

The following quotation from Duty with Honour describes well Canada’s

profession of arms in terms of the four attributes:



It “is composed of military members who are dedicated to the defence of Canada and its interest, as directed by the Government of Canada. The profession of arms is distinguished by the concept of service before self, the lawful, orderly application of military force, and the acceptance of the concept of unlimited liability. Its members possess a systematic and specialized body of military knowledge and skills acquired through education, training and experience, and they apply this expertise competently and objectively in the accomplishment of their missions. Members of the Canadian profession of arms share a set of core values and beliefs found in the military ethos that guides them in the performance of their duty and allows a special relationship of trust to be maintained with Canadian society.” (p.10) (Bold added)

You are encouraged to read Duty with Honour: The profession of Arms in Canada

for a more in depth understanding of the demands of the profession of arms on Canada’s military professionals. It can be accessed at the following Web address: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/palm/palm_e.asp

Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service

In announcing the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service, the President of the Treasury Board stated, “a Code of Values and Ethics is an essential foundation for public administration.” It “sets forth the values and ethics of the public service to guide and support public servants in all their professional activities” and “will serve to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of the Public Service.” (Code, p. 6)

Figure-12

Chapter One contains the “Statement of Public Service Values and Ethics”. The Statement rests on a balanced framework of four families of values: democratic, professional, ethical and people values. These four families of values are not distinct but overlapping. Chapters two and three of the Code contain measures that support the practice of the values and ethics contained in the Statement. The Conflict of Interest measures and Post-employment measures reduce discretionary judgement in relation to certain activities to ensure fairness and transparency in serving the public interest. The final chapter, Avenues of Resolution, recognises that there will be times when people



disagree on how to interpret the requirements of the Code and identifies alternative means of resolving disagreements. Figure-13 provides a summary diagram of the Code.

Figure-13

S E R V E

P U BL IC

IN T E R E S T

W IT H

IN T E G R IT Y

P u blic S erv ice V a lu es an d E th icsC h 2

C on flic t of

In terest M easuresC h 1

S tatem ento f P ub licS erv iceV a lue s

& E thics

D em oc ratic V alu e sH elp in g M in isters , u n d er la w , to se rve th e P u b lic In te rest

P rofes sion al Valu esS ervin g w ith com p eten ce ,

exce llen ce , e ffic ien cy, ob jectivity an d

im p a rtia lit y

E th ical V alu e sA ctin g at all t im e s in

su ch a w ay a s to u p h old th e p u b lic

tru st

P eop le V alu esD em on stratin g

resp ec t, fairn e ss an d cou rtesy in th e ir

d ealin g s w ith b oth c it izen s an d fe llo w

p u b lic se rv an ts

S h ap eP ro fes sio n a lism

& G o vern sC o n d u ct

C h 3P ost-

E m ploym en tM easures

W o rk W ith in L a w s of C an ad a

P eace , O rd e r, an d G o od G o ve rn m en t

S erve P u b lic b e fo re P riv ate In tere st

R esp ect th e D ig n ity an d V alu e of E ve ry P erson

L o yally Im p lem e n t L a w fu l D ec ision s

In teg rity

L o yalt y

H on esty

O b jec tivity

Im p a rtiality

T ran sp a ren cy

F airn ess

R esp on sib ilit y

A n d O th ers

Fo ur Fa m ilie s o f V a lues

Democratic Values focus on what public servants must do to help Ministers, under law, serve the public interest. To this end they must ensure that honest and impartial advice and all information relevant to a decision is made available to Ministers. They must practice loyalty to government in implementing ministerial decisions, lawfully taken. They must support both individual and collective ministerial accountability and provide Parliament and Canadians with information on the results of their work.

Professional Values relate to how public servants must fulfil the requirements of public service by serving with competence, excellence, efficiency objectivity and impartiality. They must work within the law of Canada and maintain the spirit of political neutrality. They must use public money properly, effectively and efficiently. They must ensure that not only the ends but the means to attain those ends fully adhere to public service values and ethics. They must strive to ensure that the value of transparency in government is upheld while respecting their duties of confidentiality under the law. Ethical Values stress what public servants must do to ensure that they uphold the public trust at all times, being ever vigilant in dealing with the overlap between their public and private spheres. They must act at all times in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. They must ensure that all decisions made in their official duties and responsibilities are in the public interest. They must perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. If a conflict should arise



between their private interests and their official duties, it must be resolved in favour of the public interest.

People Values emphasize the qualities that public servants must demonstrate in their dealings with citizens and fellow public servants. They must always exercise their authority and responsibility inspired by respect for human dignity and the value of every person. They must treat others with fairness and civility. Public servants at all levels must ensure that public service organizations are led through participation, openness and communication and with respect for diversity and the official languages of Canada. They must base appointment decisions in the Public Service on merit. They must ensure that public service values and ethics play a key role in recruitment, evaluation and promotion.

You are encouraged to read the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service (pp. 7-10) for a more complete description of the four families of values. It can be accessed through the Treasury Board website at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca or at the following address http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_851/vec-cve_e.asp Defence Ethics and Compliance A comprehensive values based program in the public sphere requires a dynamic balance between judgements based on generally accepted ethical values and judgements based on compliance. Thus CF members and DND employees must strive to maintain a balance between judgements based on the values in the Statement of Defence Ethics and judgements based on compliance with regulations like the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAODs). Although DAODs still require interpretation and judgement in their application, they are meant to limit the scope of judgement of CF members and DND employees by defining specific responsibilities and constraints imposed on them. The DAODs (Figure-14) related to Defence Ethics focus on responsibilities and constraints that assist personnel in managing both their dealings with the private sector when acting in their official capacity and the overlap between their public and private spheres.

Figure 14

C o m m o n A p p lica tio n

C o n flic t o f In te r e st

In te r n a l D isc lo su reS p o n so r sh ip s

& D o n a tio n s

P o s t-E m p lo y m e n t

G ifts ,H o sp ita lit ie s

& B e n e fits

D E F E N C EE T H IC S

D e fe n c e A dm in is tra tiv e O rde rs a n d D irec tiv e s



DAODs provide CF members and DND employees with a common policy approach on ethical issues affecting both groups similarly and, thus, ensure fairness of treatment. For example, it should be obvious to all that CF members and DND employees should only accept or keep gifts of a minimal value offered to them when they are acting in their official capacity. However, there are many circumstances in which the decision is not obvious. The CF and the DND have an obligation to provide CF members and DND employees guidance on what to do when being offered gifts by persons with whom they have contractual dealings in their official capacity. Given the sensitive nature of the relationship between the government and the private sectors, DAODs are necessary to formally address these matters for CF and DND personnel. DAODs have been produced that describe responsibilities, obligations, and specific constraints that must be complied with by CF members and DND employees in matters relating to conflict of interest and post-employment. Although requiring interpretation, DAODs serve to minimize the possibility of conflict between the roles of CF members and DND employees in the public sphere and their personal interests in the private sphere and to resolve potential conflicts between the two spheres equitably.

The main DAODs relating to Defence Ethics matters are:

DAOD 7021-0: Conflict of interest and post-employment; DAOD 7021-1: Conflict of interest; DAOD 7021-2: Post-employment; DAOD 7021-3: Acceptance of gifts, hospitality and other benefits, and DAOD 7021-4: Sponsorships and Donations.

All these DAODs can be accessed through the Defence Ethics Program website at

http://ethics.mil.ca/pages/coi_e.htm. Employees and members are encouraged to review their responsibilities and obligations set out in the DAODs.

Ethical Decision Making 33


PART II

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING



A BASIC DECISION MAKING MODEL The Defence Ethics Program recognizes the need for tools to assist members and employees in making ethical decisions. The following general model of the decision making process is a tool that provides insight into the different stages of making decisions. This model contains four stages. It provides a good description of the stages in decision-making and of how they can be theoretically organized.

The model: (1) perception, (2) judgement, (3) intent-commit, and (4) action

In some cases, the components must be worked through sequentially, while in other cases, they may be collapsed one into the other. To deal adequately with complicated and complex situations we may have to work back and forth through the four components many times before we reach a judgment that can be considered prudent and meeting the aim of doing the right thing. (Figure-15)

Figure-15

Decision Making Model

(Learning)PerceptionJudgement

Intent-CommitAction

In putting forward this model as a description of decision-making, we are not saying that individuals actually work their way consciously through each and every stage of the model prior to any action being taken, nor that they should. Depending on the urgency, the importance, and the complexity of a situation, going through this sequence could be virtually instantaneous, taking just a few seconds or last for days, months, and years. However, the shorter the time available for action, the greater the importance of having learned and practised the decision making sequence on similar types of ethical situations beforehand. Perception (stage 1) is first and foremost a holistic experience. Our knowledge, values, ethics, attitudes, personality and character are all brought into play in a general apprehension of a situation. However, if we experienced fully all of the details in our ongoing experience of life, our physical, mental, and spiritual systems would soon be overwhelmed. As a result, we have developed habits of perception that assist us in dealing with our everyday reality. The values and ethics that we trigger at this stage have a determining effect on how we will deal with a situation. As a result, if we don’t perceive the situation as involving any ethical values, then we will leave ethics out of the



decision making. Part I of this course focuses on the values and ethics that are an integral part of Defence Ethics and is meant to enhance how we perceive events in terms of those values and ethics. Defence values and ethics should be in integral part of our perception of all situations encountered in our roles as CF members and DND employees.

In what follows, we study more closely Judgement (stage 2) and Intent-Commit to action (stage 3). (Figure-16) The Judgement stage is itself best understood as a process with its own set of general components. For practical purposes, we divide judgment into four general components:

1. General assessment of the situation; 2. Ethical considerations; 3. Identifying options and risks; and 4. Choosing.

Figure-16

JUDGEMENT (STAGE 2) Our understanding of ethics is essential in determining whether or not we perceive anything ethically significant in a situation in the first place. Once we have established that a situation has characteristics that require ethical consideration, we enter the judgement stage of the decision making process. (1) General Assessment of the Situation

By starting with a general assessment of the situation, we can produce an initial summary of the main issues at stake and identify the main factors that must be addressed. Assessing a situation, including attaching different weights to factors that affect it, is a common every day activity that all of us regularly practice. However, it is important to be

COMMIT TO AN ACTION

(J-4) CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION

(J-3) OPTIONS AND RISKS

(J-2) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

(J-1) ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION



aware that facts don’t just jump out at us already tagged as relevant facts and already prioritized as to their relative importance. As CF members and DND employees we assume roles that greatly impact on what should be considered “our business” and what should be considered “none of our business”. A general assessment of the situation is the first step in determining relevancy and importance and to help us neutralize some of the restrictive effects of our perceptual habits.

A general assessment should include an assessment of two different types of relevant factors concerning: individuals and the working or mission environment. Individual factors include people’s sense of identity, relationships, values and moral development. Working or mission environmental factors refer to social, legal, governmental and professional requirements and the characteristics of the situation itself. (2) Ethical Considerations

In any human situation, there are many factors present that we take for granted and do not question. When ethical values are involved, such an attitude can lead to unhealthy practices perpetuated through time. For example, it was not that long ago that most people assumed without questioning that hiring practices in the Canadian Forces were fair to all applicants. However, cases involving gender issues since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was made law in 1982 have made it clear that unacceptable biases had been built into CF hiring practices. As a result, these practices were revised.

All situations in life where ethics is present and relevant involve the application of

values that are important to us. In most cases, we work through the relative complexity of each of the situations to reach a “best” and prudent conclusion about a course of action. If we are systematic in our efforts, we are probably applying one of the widely used ways of thinking about ethics developed in western societies. The Defence Ethics Program has singled out six of the main ways of thinking about ethics that are useful to better appreciate the diverse and legitimate means of deciding on right action. Six Systematic Ways of Thinking About Ethics - There are six widely used general approaches to ethics in western societies that serve to guide ethical judgement. Each has roots in major philosophical traditions that have developed these approaches more systematically and extensively:

a) rule-based, b) consequence-based, c) care-based, d) virtue-based, e) Multiple-approach basis, and f) self interest-based.

(a) Rule-Based - For people working in the public sector, the first step in assessing

what is the right thing to do will often be to check if there is a rule or a regulation that



covers the situation. This habit is consistent with a long tradition in democratic countries of giving priority to the law. Of course, giving priority to the law existed long before modern democracies. For example, very large numbers of religious believers have treated the Law for a thousand year and more as first and foremost something received from God. There was also a time when the law was produced by someone empowered by God to rule on earth (for example, an anointed king). In more recent times, many have based the legitimacy of laws solely on natural law, the belief that there are basic laws of nature that apply to humans (as natural beings) and their relationships and that human reason is sufficient to discover them. For large numbers today, the law is a necessary social construct, without which society, as we know it, could not function. A law is considered a rule that is binding on its own, without any reference to the consequences that may result from following that rule in particular situations. When we refer to laws in democratic societies, we usually have in mind written laws legislated and enforced by the three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. However, we are all aware of laws that rest on a different foundation. For example, there is a well known law found in Christianity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A familiar example of an unwritten law in our society is that promise keeping has value in itself. What is common to all of these cases is that the law, written and unwritten, is considered a rule that must have priority in judgements that determine what should or should not be done. This approach to ethical judgement is associated mainly with the deontological tradition that stresses the priority of duty in all circumstances. The philosopher Immanuel Kant is probably the leading modern representative of a duty based approach. In his ethical philosophy, a person’s actions have moral worth only if his or her actions are done freely and guided by reason. He also argued that reason itself was rule-based, governed by a moral law, and that the right thing to do is determined by imperatives that satisfy the requirements of the moral law. (b) Consequence-Based - When democratic governments produce laws to implement programs designed to advance the public interest, the legislators often justify their choices by referring to the public good that the results are intended to produce. In essence, they assess the worth of the results of the actions to be taken under the legislation - for example, providing monetary relief to Canadian beef cattle farmers adversely affected by the United States closure of its borders to Canadian beef– and argue that the legislation is necessary because of the good that it will produce. Whenever we use a cost-benefit analysis as the primary means of deciding the right thing to do, we are applying a consequence-based approach. The same is true, if we are mainly motivated by the adverse consequences of our actions. For example, if our primary motivation to avoid speeding 50 kilometres over the speed limit is our desire to avoid the large fine that will result from being caught, we are applying a consequence-based approach. This approach to ethical judgement is mainly associated with Utilitarianism, a consequentialist tradition that stresses the overriding priority of the results of actions in all circumstances. One of the dominant forms of this tradition is represented by the



philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians have argued that in deciding what is the right thing to do, the determining factor is to choose whatever action will produce the greatest happiness or well-being for the greatest number.

(c) Care-Based – When health care advocates pressure government to provide Canadians with an effective health care system, they often base their arguments on the principle that all Canadians deserve to be treated humanely. Those who defend a care-based approach argue that a better and more appropriate basis for decision making in our modern times is the humane treatment we are all owed as human beings. For example, it was not so long ago that the prevailing view of justice, heavily influenced by economic and utilitarian motives, justified practices related to maternity in the workplace that were discriminatory to women. Today, many of these practices have been changed. Arguments for maternity leave are now based in large part on a view of justice that is heavily influenced by care motives. Although the obligation to care for others has been around for thousands of years, it has only been since the twentieth century that it has been defended widely as the primary basis for decision-making in the public sphere. A care-based approach to ethical judgement argues that the focus of decision-making in our democratic societies must move away from what it calls power-type strategies. It criticises rule-based strategies because they give priority to abstract laws and criticises consequences-based strategies because they rely mainly on assessing the usefulness of the outcomes of actions. It argues that we have obligations of care for humanity that go beyond the strict application of abstract laws that can be very inhumane and beyond the cold blooded calculations of utility. Rule-based strategies and consequences-based strategies are valid and useful only if they are subordinated to the principles of care. Given the recent appearance of a strong care based approach on the ethics scene, there isn’t yet a main representative of the movement. However, many care-based advocates have strong roots in the feminist movement. Interested readers are referred to the works of philosophers like Annette Baier on trust and Nel Noddings on care and of psychologist Carol Gilligan on moral development.

(d) Virtue Based – Understanding ethics primarily by focusing on the virtuous individual and on his or her inner traits, dispositions, and motives has also been around for thousands of years. It was the basis for Aristotle’s practical study of human action. For Aristotle, if someone wanted to learn how to become a person that practises honesty, loyalty, justice, or any of the other virtues, the proper way to learn this was not to start with abstract concepts but rather to experience these virtues through the action of others and to imitate that action. This approach is still widely accepted today, as is evidenced by the widely held belief that children learn what to do primarily by what they see others do and not primarily by what they are told. The importance and value of focusing on an individual’s character is also evidenced in the work done in transformational leadership. Advocates of a virtue-based approach to ethical judgement argue that a person of good character strives to do the right thing. They argue that there is a dynamic



relationship between an individual’s character and the society, community, or group in which they live and work. A person of good character is one that reflects to a large degree the fundamental values of that society, community, or group. Thus, a virtue-based approach will argue that what contributes to shaping character should have priority. In particular, shaping character should be the primary focus of an organization’s training efforts. In the public sphere, and particularly in Defence, there is a growing emphasis placed on the dynamics between an individual’s inner traits, dispositions, and motives and the organizational culture. This trend is consistent with findings in organizational theory indicating that great importance is attached today in organizations not only in matching individuals to jobs but also in ensuring that their characters fit well with the organization’s culture.

Virtue-based approaches as a basis for determining what is the right thing to do returned to prominence in the second half of the twentieth century as a result of a growing dissatisfaction with the perceived insufficiencies of the dominant ethical theories of the times, in particular with utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological ethics. Interested readers are referred to the works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Philippa Foot, Michael Slote, and also Annette Baier and Carol Gilligan.

(e) Multiple-Approach Basis – Many individuals have experienced something similar to the following sequence of events. For example, while interacting with each other during a morning break, coworkers rightfully feel that the right thing to do is usually governed by respect for one another. After the break, they return to a job related task that involves dealing with contracts and they rightfully believe that, in these circumstances, the right thing to do is primarily dictated by the rules governing contracts. Later in the day, some of them may be involved in assessing options for the acquisition of a new piece of equipment and they rightfully believe that they should be primarily concerned about the performance and the costs of the various options available. In this example, the basis for doing the right thing shifts because factors intrinsic to the context favour one approach to ethics over another. A multiple-approach to ethical judgement claims that we must apply a multiplicity of ethical approaches, singly or in combination, when dealing with an ethical situation: rule-based, consequence-based, care-based, virtue-based, and in some cases self-interest-based. It argues that the attempts of ethical theories to provide a foundation for ethics in some unifying first principles – for example, the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism/consequence-based – is fundamentally misguided. It argues that we experience many standards of value and many truths and that these truths are sometimes partial and sometimes conflicting. In a multiple-approach to ethics, the context and the situation contain factors that impact the selection of the best approach for deciding what is the right thing to do in that situation. Interested readers are referred to the works of John Kekes, Michael Walzer, Nicholas Rescher, and Lawrence Hinman. (f) Self-Interest-Based – Consider a single working parent with two children. She or he may well receive good advice from others on the importance of taking care of themselves and not running themselves into the ground. If they don’t heed the advice



both the job and the family will suffer. Similarly, research has shown the detrimental effect on judgement that sleep deprivation can have on military personnel. If leaders don’t take care of themselves, grave consequences can occur to both the mission and the personnel they command. Advocates of a self-interest-based approach consider it important to assess how a particular decision might affect them personally. However, most of us can easily recognize that there is a danger in giving too much weight to self-interest needs and of rationalizing the practice of always looking out for number One. For employees of the Department of National Defence and members of the Canadian Forces, giving too much weight to a self-interest-based approach in decision making at the expense of the public interest they are supposed to advance can result in the abuse of power or lead to careerism. A self-interest-based approach claims that we are primarily motivated by what we believe is in our own self-interest and that everyone would be better off if we all looked out for our own interests. The self-interest-based approach does not however rule out taking care of others. It gives many great pleasure to care for their children or for others and hence is in their self interest to do so. Interested readers are referred to the works of David Gauthier, Ayn Rand, and Thomas Hobbes. Ethical Dilemmas - They represent only a small number of all the situations that we will encounter in life and the workplace that involve ethics. (Figure-17) It is not what makes ethical dilemmas ethical that makes them stand out from the rest, but what makes them dilemmas. There are two important sources of ethical dilemmas: internal conflict (within ourselves) and external conflict (with others and the environment). In both cases, the dilemma is the result of the competing standards or values that are ever present. The original and strict definition of a dilemma refers to a problematic situation in which there are only two possible options for resolving it and both options are considered either equally desirable or equally undesirable. In addition, there are no additional criteria for selecting between the two options. The original meaning of a dilemma is expressed well in the saying “caught on the horns of a dilemma”.

Figure-17

Ethical Situations and Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical Dilemmas

Ethical Situations



Ways of working out dilemma situations have been around for thousands of years. For example, in the bible, King Solomon’s famous method of uncovering the real mother of a baby being claimed by two women illustrates how one could deal with an ethical dilemma. He relied on what he believed to be the strength of a mother’s love for her child when he announced that, in the absence of a clear criteria, the only just thing to do was to give each claimant one half of the baby. In our contemporary society, the scope of the term dilemma has been extended to include problem situations where there may be more than two options for resolving the situation. Today, an ethical dilemma may refer to any of the following three types of dilemma situations: the Uncertainty Dilemma, the Competing Values Dilemma, and the Harm Dilemma. The Uncertainty Dilemma is the general case for an ethical dilemma situation. The Competing Values Dilemma and the Harm Dilemma are specialised cases of the Uncertainty Dilemma.

Uncertainty Dilemma – This type of ethical dilemma captures the essential feature of any dilemma situation. To be in a dilemma situation, we must have reached a point where we have two or more options that are equally desirable, or undesirable, and valid. In other words, it is not clear what is the right thing to do because there are equally valid reasons for all options worked out. It may be that the criteria we have used to assess our options do not allow us to decide for one or the other of the options. It could also be that we have employed competing strategies in developing the options.

Competing Values Dilemma – It involves the special case of two or more ethical values competing with each other. There are many potential sources of competing values dilemmas for DND and CF personnel. For example, we may be put in a situation of having to choose to act based either on our loyalty to a Commanding Officer or a supervisor who seems involved in a conflict of interest and our own personal and professional integrity. This may also be happen to the CF and the DND as organisations in circumstances where being fiscally responsible competes with being fair to its members and employees.

Harm Dilemma – Every available option worked out will cause harm or injury.

In general, one resolves an ethical dilemma by identifying a basis for assigning more worth to one of the critical values or systematic approaches than to the other competing values or approaches. Depending on the type of dilemma, this strategy may allow us to choose an option that will cause the least harm or injury, or an option which supports a specific ethical obligation, or develop a new option that overcomes the dilemma situation by incorporating various aspects of the other options. (3) Options And Risks In developing a course of action to deal with a situation, one must work out the reasonable options from which to make a choice. This process will involve defining the options, analysing their effects, listing the ways and means of implementing the options,



and identifying all relevant and important risks to ourselves and the organization of carrying out each course of action. Options and their effects - Options are often a mixture of ethical considerations and other factors. It is important to sort out what weight is being assigned to the different types of factors and why. In addition, to the extent that ethics is being considered at all, the reasoning used will usually involve one or more of the six systematic approaches to ethical judgement presented above. Whatever the options and related systematic approaches, the effects of each option would normally also have to be considered in terms of their ethical worth. Way/Means - Once possible options to deal with a situation have been identified, the search for the means to implement the preferred option begins. In some cases, the means may not be available. Although we may have identified the best option in an ideal world, there may be no way of carrying it out. This, in itself, may create a dilemma. In such circumstances, we may have to select the next “best” option or forego any action whatsoever. Although the means of resolving the situation are often worked into the option, it is important to distinguish them from options and their effects. The latter refer to the goal to be reached or the mission to be accomplished, whereas the means themselves refer to the mechanisms and resources that will achieve the aim. Personal and organisational Risks - As we consider what needs to be done, we will inevitably think of the risks to the organization associated with the preferred option. It will also be very difficult for us not to be influenced by any personal risks to which some option may expose us and others. These personal risks include a whole spectrum of effects, from a bad performance evaluation, to a “career ending” stand, to physical and life threatening danger to ourselves and others with whom we serve. They also involve anything that will impact the quality of life for our families. It is easy to appreciate how strongly these risks can be perceived to be and the need to seek a proper balance between these various dimensions in reaching a judgement about the right thing to do. (4) Choosing If the above process has been applied well, the choice of the best option should be fairly straightforward. The difficulty is not normally with the “logical” choice but with what is involved when we must shift from choosing the best option to committing to action, from decision to action. We now turn to that stage of ethical decision-making. COMMITTING TO ACTION (STAGE 3) Quite often, by the time we get to a decision, especially if we have taken the time to go through the steps in this model, commitment to action is nearly simultaneous. Yet, it is useful to remember that the two should be distinguished. A decision involves primarily our rational side. By contrast, the actual commitment to action, the decision to initiate action, involves all of us. Until we move from the choosing mode to the mode of committing to action, we are still, to a certain extent, in the realm of only good or bad



intentions. For some, the transition can be very difficult, to the point where it is advisable for them to seek assistance to go from the “I’m still in the choosing mode” to “I’m getting on with the best choice”. Moving from a decision to action is often filled with second thoughts. By gaining a better understanding of this stage of decision-making, we are better prepared to take action that deals adequately with the potential obstacles to ethical action. This section will look at the “YaBut” syndrome and a three-level model of ethical obligation.

“YaBut” The “YaBut” syndrome is fairly universal. We experience it every time we think we have made a decision and then feel enough resistance about putting it into action that we give ourselves more time before taking action. Some describe it as similar to hitting an invisible wall. Although there are many causes of this phenomena - for example, concerns relating to financial, psychological or physical harm - it always involves the uncertainty that is an integral part of any future action. The “YaBut” phase is categorically different from the analysis done during the judgement phase. While analysing our options, our reason has the upper hand, as we identify options, and choose and decide on the best one. “YaBut” occurs after we have completed the more rational judgement phase.

Here are some of the expressions that indicate that someone who should be committing to action is really saying “YaBut”: - “It may be the right thing to do, but this is too risky for me.” - “It’s no use doing this, it won’t accomplish anything”. - “You can’t tell that (rank) that he is wrong! He is always right!” - “I’m not sacrificing my career for that.” - “Oops! That’s not what she wants to hear. Better rework those numbers”. - “How can this be right if it’s going to cause so much harm?” - “It seems like the logical thing to do, but it doesn’t feel right.”

If you find yourself in this predicament, you may be tempted to choose the second best or third best options, or no action at all. As can be seen from the above list of quotes, the situations implied by these comments bring into question our ability to do our work ethically and professionally. The effectiveness and the integrity of the CF and the DND depend upon the moral courage of its personnel to find a way to overcome such obstacles. In some cases, attempting to open up avenues of dialogue with the person perceived to be the source of the risk may be sufficient to dissolve the “YaBut”. In other cases, however, formal mechanisms may be required to assist personnel in overcoming the “YaBut”, especially in situations involving the rights and freedoms of CF and DND



personnel or the integrity of government. CF and DND policies on harassment and conflict of interest are examples of such mechanisms. If the source of your “YaBut” involves one of these situations, the CF and the DND strongly encourage you to use the avenues that have been put in place to allow you to overcome the “YaBut” obstacles to doing the right thing. Some of these avenues are: • Chain of Command; • Harassment Co-ordinators; • Chaplains; • Social Workers; • Union representatives; • Employee Assistance Program representatives; • CF/DND Office for Disclosure; • Office of the Ombudsperson; and • Public Service Integrity Office.

Three Levels of Ethical Obligations

The following is adapted from a three-level model of ethical obligation proposed by James Fishkin in The Limits of Obligations that can help us understand the ambiguity and the resistance we may legitimately feel in the face of action we agree we should do, but can’t bring ourselves to do. The model establishes a link between our assessment of the level of risk involved to ourselves and others in taking a proposed action and a corresponding varying degree of ethical obligation. The three levels are heroism, robust obligation, and optional obligations.

Heroism - Actions at this level are actions taken in circumstances that are

exceptional and that we, as individuals, are not called upon to perform often in the course of a lifetime. They often involve situations of crisis or of grave danger. However, this should not blind us to the fact that such actions occur on a regular basis in our society. Heroic actions can be either physical or moral. In many cases, although the opportunity may be there to perform such actions, few are faulted by society for not having carried out heroic actions. For example, in one case a person on the shore who does not know how to swim sees a child drowning but out of reach. The person on the shore finds a long branch, jumps into the water with a strong current, and reaches the drowning child with the branch just in time. In a different case, another person who does not know how to swim may well stand by helplessly on the shore as a person out of reach drowns. Society does not generally fault the person in the second case who stood by helplessly.

Robust Obligations - Actions at this level are in the zone of ethical obligations

related to the roles we fulfil in our lives and, in our official capacities. However, they also cover the whole range of unusual and high risk actions that form an integral part of certain types of roles and jobs in our society – for example, military and law enforcement activities. In most cases, individuals who fail to do the actions required by these obligations are faulted for not having done them. Therefore, to understand what actions



belong at this level, we must consider not only the general characteristics of ethical obligations but also the differences in duties associated with different types of employment. This means that what is considered a duty to one person because of their type of employment (for example being a member of the CF or of a law enforcement agency), may be considered beyond the call of duty in someone else’s case.

Optional Obligations - At this level, it is very important to specify the point of

view adopted to assess the obligation. Since we are dealing with the public sphere, we must distinguish between different types of actions that would create optional obligations when exercising our public roles: actions related to our private life while we exercise our public roles; trivial actions related to our public roles; and actions that occur in our private life. For example, what an individual chooses to eat at lunchtime is usually a personal decision. Similarly, whether a CF members choose jogging or swimming as a form of maintaining physical fitness is usually left to their discretion and does not usually have any relevance to decision making in their public roles. Finally, many of the actions performed in our roles as parents, spouses, charitable organization, and other personal commitments may represent robust obligations in our private life but should usually have little relevance for most of our decision making in our public roles. Thus, robust obligations related to the private life of members of the CF and employees of DND should often be treated as optional when they act in their official capacity.

Circumstances influence whether we assess a particular action as heroic, as a robust obligation, or as optional. Our moral sense of what is right can often serve as a guide in assessing the relative importance of circumstances on decisions we take in our public roles. Circumstances also cause similar acts to migrate between levels. For example, you are new to a section. One day, you and others witness a clear case of disrespect and abuse of authority against a subordinate much lower in rank than the perpetrator. Although there is a robust obligation to do something, everyone you talk to informs you that the perpetrator has the power and the demonstrated will to take reprisal action. Some coworkers have concluded from past experience with this person that it would be too risky to speak up concerning any observed unethical matters in the workplace. Doing the right thing in such circumstances may well require heroism. To reduce the number of situations that require these types of heroic action, the CF and the DND have multiplied the number of mechanisms that allow personnel to do the right thing in such circumstances by reducing the risks to themselves to an acceptable level.

By providing a means of categorizing the relative importance of proposed action, the three level model of ethical obligations provides us with an idea of the degree of resistance we can expect to feel when we want to go from decision to action. This may encourage us to seek additional assistance in finding ways to overcome the resistance to committing to action through self-help, friends, co-workers, or competent experts.

THE DEP ETHICAL DECISION MAKING MODEL The Defence Ethics Program has developed a comprehensive Ethical Decision Making Model (Figure-18) to serve as the basis for the Defence Ethics Survey.



Figure-18

Individual Values

Individual ApproachesTo Ethics

Individual EthicalDevelopment

SituationalMoral Intensity

OrganizationalEthical Climate

RecognizeEthical Issue

EthicalJudgement

EthicalIntent

EthicalBehaviour

Indicators

Stages of Ethical Decision-Making

Ethical Decision-Making Model

The survey is CF and DND wide. It was first conducted in 1999 to produce a baseline assessment of ethical decision making in the CF and DND. A second administration of the survey was conducted in 2003.

The DEP model includes the stages of decision making that have been studied in this course. It identifies five key types of indicators, some of which have already been covered in the preceding sections. As illustrated, the indicators interact with each other and influence all stages of decision-making:

1) Individual values; 2) Organizational ethical climate; 3) Individual Ideological bases for ethical decision-making; 4) Moral Intensity of the situations; and 5) Individual Moral Development.

In this course, we have discussed Individual values and Individual ideological

bases for ethical decision-making. Integrity, courage, loyalty, honesty, fairness, and responsibility are examples of Individual Values. As we have seen they are also ethical obligations that have been singled out in the Statement of Defence Ethics for all military and civilian personnel in Defence. Systematic approaches to ethics based on Rules, Consequences, Care, Virtue, Self-interest, or a combination of these are all examples of Individual ideological bases for ethical decision-making. Eleven organizational factors are used to measure Organizational ethical climate. Moral intensity of the situations measures the types of factors that qualify the situation itself, such as consensus of belief in the rightness or wrongness of the situation. Although not assessed by the Defence



Ethics Survey, individual Moral Development identifies different phases that individuals demonstrate in their ethical decision-making and behaviour.

This course does not allow us the time necessary to analyse in depth the results of the Defence Ethics Surveys on ethical decision-making and on leadership’s abilities to influence individual values, ethics, and a healthy ethical climate. However, the various types of indicators identify important influences that need to be considered in the practice of ethics in the organization. As illustrated in Figure-19, the main zone of leadership influence focuses on creating an ethical climate. However, leadership can also impact important factors that contribute to a situations ethical intensity. Although leadership can only influence individual values and individual approaches (ideologies) to ethics indirectly, that influence is real. As the two-way arrows show, all dimensions of ethics are interconnected and affect each other. A leaders ability to influence directly one dimension will inevitably carry over indirectly to the other dimensions.

Figure-19

Ethical LeadershipInfluences

Situational Intensity

Individual Values & Ethical Ideologies

EthicalClimate

ETHICS

LEADERSHIP

LEADERSHIP

For those interested in finding out more about the meaning of the five types of

indicators, they can find the results of both the 1999 and the 2003 Defence Ethics Surveys on the Defence Ethics Program website: www.dnd.ca/ethics: a) Baseline Assessment of the Ethical Values in DND (1999); and b) 2003 Defence Ethics Survey.

You are encouraged to read the reports. They provide useful information on the

ethical values and approaches to ethics used by CF and DND personnel and on how they perceive the ethical climate of the organization.

Concluding Remarks 49


PART III

CONCLUDING

REMARKS



The stated aim of this course is to gain knowledge of the complexities of Defence ethics and its application. The selection of material for this manual has been primarily motivated by the belief that by exploring what is involved in answering the question What’s the right thing to do?, defence personnel will be better prepared to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the highest ethical standards.

Accordingly, in Part I, “Ethics and the Defence Ethics Program”, the course material introduced important concepts related to ethics as it applies to government and to Defence. In Part II, “Ethical Decision Making”, the material made use of decision making models to address the different stages of ethical decision making and the factors that influence it.

In these concluding remarks, we focus on two types of acts that require the material found in Parts I and II: the Ethics Check and Voicing Ethical Concerns.

The “Ethics Check”

One very basic and important way to contribute to the ethical health of the CF and DND is to ensure that all decisions are ethically validated prior to moving from decision to action by carrying out an “ethics check”. Doing an “ethics check” may be a challenge at first if we have not had the habit of doing so in the past. We all have a basic intuition of what is right. It is sometimes referred to as a gut feel about what is the right thing to do. By activating it, we tap into the core of what ethics is for us as a person.

Here are a few sample questions that help us focus our basic intuition of what is right: a. What is my general feeling toward the action being proposed? b. What is my gut feel here? c. Am I comfortable with this decision? If your answers to any of these questions or similar questions when face with a decision reveals that you are not satisfied, then consider the option of repeating the stages of the decision making process.

A word of caution is in order. There is an important difference between appealing to our basic intuition of what is right, our gut feel, when the ethics of the situation has not yet been discussed and appealing to it after having reached a decision on the appropriate action to take. Invoking our gut feel of what is right as a justification for action exposes us to a “knee jerk” reaction to situations that may be much more complex and demanding than first meets the eye and to all of the risks that accompany such reactions. However, learning to rely on our basic intuition of what is right once that intuition has been informed by working through the ethics of a situation is one of the most powerful means of guaranteeing that the action proposed is the best ethically speaking. The “ethics check” also represents an effective way of injecting ethical thinking in situations where we may have become complacent and developed a habit of thinking that there is no need for it.



Voicing Ethical Concerns

The social sciences have shown that the relationship between knowing what’s right and doing what’s right can be a weak link. Strengthening this link is the main challenge that we all face in the CF and the DND if we are to work in a healthy ethical climate. One simple and straightforward way to reach this goal is to create an environment where giving voice to our ethical concerns is not only encouraged but also welcomed. By voicing these concerns, we, as individuals, bring them out into the open where they can be dealt with in a public way rather than pushed out of sight where they often cause problems that surface one day as a crisis. The CF and the DND have put in place formal mechanisms that contribute to achieving this aim. These mechanisms are especially important in certain circumstances, such as cases of harassment and discrimination. However, formal mechanisms can only bring us so far. What is needed is a commitment at all levels of the CF and the DND to encourage and support personnel to voice ethical concerns.

The imperative of giving voice to our ethical concerns should be considered a necessary means of sustaining the basic democratic principle: We are all equal in dignity. However, to truly treat each other as equals in dignity in a free and democratic society, we must also accept that this imperative has a corollary: Silence is no longer an acceptable option.

.Annex A – A Method for Case Studies 53


ANNEX A

A

METHOD

FOR

CASE STUDIES



WORKING THROUGH A CASE STUDY You can now put into practice what we have seen concerning Defence Ethics and decision making by applying this knowledge to analysing and resolving cases involving ethics. Of course, in working through real life cases, everything you already know about ethics will be brought into play.

This manual does not contain actual case studies. They will be provided by the workshop facilitator. This Annex contains an Ethics Analysis Case Study Discussion Guide based on the Ethics Decision Making Model – a tool to help you come to a decision about a particular course of action. After using this tool with the case studies during this workshop, it is anticipated that you will be able to use this tool for other ethical dilemmas you encounter. AIM The aim is for participants to increase their capability in dealing with real life ethical cases through group discussion, using the knowledge acquired about defence ethics. OBJECTIVES Participants will be able to: a. demonstrate their knowledge of Defence Ethics, b. use the components of judgement; and c. determine some of the difficulties involved in moving from decision to action. MOTIVATION The best way to learn is by practise. Whether, you have gained new knowledge today, confirmed your existing strategies, or just increased your awareness of tools that can be helpful in dealing with the ethics of a situation, it is necessary to practise this to gain maximum benefit. A group forum is an ideal environment for practise.

CASE STUDY INSTRUCTIONS Syndicates of no more than eight people will be created.

• Case study will be assigned • Syndicates will need to:

o Select spokesperson / presenter, o Read the case study, o Use the worksheet as a basis for discussion and record decisions, o Respect opinions in group, and o Encourage participation by all members.



• One of the groups will be chosen to present their findings to the entire class • After the presentation, there will be an open discussion, and • The instructor/facilitator will summarize (general debrief)

Figure-20

Ethics Analysis Case Study Discussion Guide PERCEPTION AND JUDGEMENT 1. General Assessment:

a. Facts and Dilemma; (1) What are the Facts? (2) Is there an ethical dilemma here? (3) List type of ethical dilemma & why? (a) Uncertainty, (b) Competing Obligations, and (c) Harm, b. Personal Factors;

COMMIT TO AN ACTION

CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION

OPTIONS AND RISKS

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION



(1) List in relative importance, (2) Individual attributes (Perception, Position/status), and (3) Relationships, c. Environmental Factors; (1) List in relative importance, (2) Situational Factors, and (3) Social and Work environment. 2. Ethical Considerations: a. Defence Ethics Values; (1) List the principles & obligations of concern, (2) Defence Ethics Program,

(a) Respect the dignity of all persons, (b) Serve Canada before self, and (c) Obey and support lawful authority, (i) Responsibility, (ii) Fairness, (iii) Loyalty,

(iv) Courage, (v) Integrity, and (vi) Honesty.

b. What’s the main ethical concern in this situation? (1) Integrity, (2) Loyalty, (3) Courage, (4) Honesty, (5) Fairness, and (6) Responsibility, c. Which ethical approach seems the most appropriate? (1) Rule-based, (2) Consequences-based, (3) Care-based, (4) Virtue-based, (5) Multiple-approach basis, and (6) Self interest-based.



3. Options & Risks a. List a range of options. (1) What options would you propose?

(2) What are the types of effects (collateral, side effects) associated with each option?

b. Ways / means /challenges of implementing? (1) Consider factors like cost,

(2) time, (3) available resources,

c. What organizational risks are involved in these options? 4. Choose a Course of Action:

a. What do you choose as the best course of action? COMMITTING TO ACTION When moving from decision to action the YaBut syndrome and the levels of moral obligations are strong influences. Here are questions designed to get a feel for the personal risks involved in committing to what one believes is the ethically right thing to do: a. What is my general feeling toward the decision being proposed? b. What are the risks involved for me? For others? c. Am I willing to undergo all the possible consequences of my action?

d. Do I need any help to assist me in implementing a difficult ethical decision and where can I get it?

.Annex B – Cases 59


ANNEX B

CASES



Cases for Ethics 1. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT: You are the manager of a consultant's contract for a project involving matrix support. The work to be done by the project is considered urgent. To save time and money, it is decided to use vendors' performance benchmarks to determine equipment requirements. A consultant is hired to do the following:

a. contact the vendors; b. document their recommendations and; c. based on these vendor performance benchmarks, develop the equipment

specifications. As part of the consultants contract, it is required that the vendors' performance benchmarks be documented as evidence that the requirements will be met. However, through the consultant’s interim report, it is discovered that the vendor's recommendations are not adequate to allow specification of the equipment. The project members meet and agree that the consultant has the necessary expertise in the area and is the best person to develop the required specifications himself. It is also decided to do this with no change in contract cost even though it will require him to spend an extra, uncompensated, week's work on it. Therefore, the contract is amended only to reflect an increase in duration and to indicate the consultant will develop the specification himself. When the required specification is delivered, the manager of one of the matrix support groups refuses to sign off on it. This manager agrees that the specification is adequate, but there are no vendors' benchmark figures provided that can "prove" that the consultant’s specification is right. Without the managers’ sign-off on the specification, the project cannot proceed. It is estimated that it will take at least another two weeks of effort for the consultant to produce vendor’s benchmarking data, two weeks for which he will not be compensated and which is not explicitly covered even in the revised approach. What do you do? 2. PERs: You feel that numerical scores on Personnel Evaluation Reports (PERs) have become inflated over time. Consequently, supervisors are faced with two insidious options: either score their subordinates “by the book” and disadvantage them for promotion, or, inflate their scores and thereby contribute to the weakness of the PER system. In addition, you believe that the practice of inflating scores forces supervisors into the habit of not providing a truthful assessment of job performance to the personnel being evaluated. On the other hand, you reason, that PERs are subjective. As long as people write PERs, such factors as personality, perception, and each person’s idea of what a “good” job means that they will always be that way, regardless of method selected. “What would you do? and Why?”



3. DISCRIMINATION: You come across a document written by an NDHQ authority about a minority group. The document is being used nationally, in the regions and on the bases. As a member of the minority group, you know that this paper contains a number of significant errors. The information in this paper is just not true. Although the document is classified “Protected B”, you discuss these errors with a few civilian friends, who also belong to the minority group. They tell you that they don’t expect anything different from the government. In addition, they warn you about the danger of stirring the waters when you’re a member of a minority group. “What would you do? and Why?” 4. MARITAL ISSUES: You live in a housing complex for military personnel. In addition, you were fortunate enough to become friends with three other co-workers and their wives who also live in the complex. You and your wife have shared with them many fun-filled summer weekends over B-B-Q in the housing complex court. In the last few months, however, it has surfaced that the marriage of J.M., your best friend, may well be over. Recently, while having coffee with him, he reveals that M.P, the wife of one of the other couples, has been making advances. In fact, he tells you that he is going to accept her invitation to “come over and dine and other things”, as she put it, when her husband leaves next week for a four-week course. You tell him that this isn’t wise and that it will create problems for everyone if he persists in this. He tells you that he isn’t going to give up a golden opportunity like this, that he regrets having told you, and to forget he ever spoke to you about it. What would you do? and Why? 5. GOLF TOURNAMENT: You have just become the CO of a Technical Services Detachment, resident in a contractor's plant. In your first week on the job, you find out that your staff is looking forward to the Contractor's Annual Golf Tournament, to be held in three weeks at a very exclusive private golf club. The TSD's participation in this tournament has gone on for many years. In fact, last year’s Tournament Cup sits in the TSDs’ lunch room. Participation in the tournament includes a round of golf, dinner and a prize-giving ceremony. You are, however, concerned. Although, you have experienced this kind of good business public relations before, you feel that times are changing. What would you do? and Why? 6. AIR MILES: About a year ago, you were fortunate enough to get a job that requires that you travel often on Temporary Duty. Few of these trips require that you use military transportation or accommodation. Prior to that, you had travelled a bit at your own expense, and had opened an air miles account. Without thinking much about it, you let all these “business” air miles be added to your account. Since everything you do on a business trip, i.e. hotels, restaurants, car rentals, can accumulate air miles. Your spouse was opening the mail recently and noticed that the account now has sufficient number of air miles that both of you could get that needed holiday that you had been talking about. In fact, she has found just the holiday package that would do the trick. As you think about what to do, you remind yourself that you have been working long hours since you have been in this job and there are virtually no “perks” left in the military. Although recent changes in policy make collecting air miles or points legal, what ethical issues may arise from this new policy change of allowing collection of air miles and points?



7. DRIVER PERMIT: You are a Senior Non Commissioned Member and your unit will start a major deployment (Op Recuperation) in 24hrs. Most of the exercise will be carried out on federal land, with some use of civilian road. As you go through the last-minute check-list with one of your staff, she tells you about the tough break that just happened to Cpl T.J. He is one of your top MSE Ops. It seems that he was just over the line on the alcohol test - he had had three glasses of wine - and was convicted in a civilian court of drunk driving. The judge decided to make an example of him and gave him a one-year civilian Driver Permit suspension. Later in the day, you confirm the story and that the Cpl has not reported the conviction to the chain of command. Although you have already complained to your superiors about the shortage of staff, you have been told that there are no additional personnel, and you’re convinced that you will not be able to carry out all assigned tasks. What would you do? and Why? 8. THE BROKEN LEG: You are a Regular Force Senior Non-commissioned Officer working as part of the Regular Force Support Staff at a Reserve Force unit. Your Commanding Officer (CO), a Reserve officer, is a well-known member of the local community. However, everyone in the local military and civilian community are aware that he loves to « share a drink » and that he often shows up for duty in an inebriated state. Everyone has preferred, up to now, to be silent about the situation. A few weeks ago, this CO broke his leg during an exercise. When his civilian medical insurance plan would not cover his medical costs, the CO submitted a claim to the military. Your superior, also a Reserve Force officer signed off the Report of Injuries. However, your superior, and many others, were well aware that the accident was a direct result of the CO’s drunkenness at the time. You consider this information important. As you prepare to forward this letter covering the report to higher authority, you notice that the signed document has omitted this information. When you bring the issue to the attention of your superior, he tells you its water under the bridge and to send the letter on its way. What would you do? and Why?

.Annex C – Glossary 63


ANNEX C

GLOSSARY



GLOSSARY

The Glossary contains definitions of terms that are commonly used in the Defence Ethics Program (DEP). It also defines some technical terms that are important in applied ethics but are not commonly used in Defence or the Canadian government environment. The more technical definitions in the field of ethics are flagged by an asterisk (*). Terms in bold letters within a definition refer to terms that are defined in the glossary. The definition of the terms in the Glossary is based mostly on sources from the literature in the field of ethics. The following sources were particularly useful in producing the definitions: - Beauchamp, Tom L. Philosophical Ethics : An Introduction to Moral Philosophy - Canto-Sperber, Monique. Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale - Denise, Theodore, Nicholas White, Sheldon Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics - Hinman, Lawrence. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory - Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations. (Canadian Forces Leadership Institute) - Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong Care based ethics – A care-based approach to ethics gives priority to the humane treatment that we are all owed as human beings while emphasizing the relationship dimension of human interaction. It also stresses the need to factor into ethical decision making the inequalities in power that are present in relationships in both the private and the public spheres of life. (See Ethics of care*) Competing values dilemma - The competing values dilemma represents a special case of an ethical dilemma and involves a situation in which two or more ethical values support competing options in an ethical decision making situation. For example, options involving loyalty to others compete with options involving professional integrity. Compliance ethics program A compliance ethics program has at its core a rule-based ethics and represents a legalistic approach to ethics. This type of program tends to develop elaborate and comprehensive codes designed to deal with as many situations as possible and emphasizes compliance with rules. It shows a preference for rules, regulations and policies as a means of encouraging ethical behaviour. It is the dominant approach adopted by the United States government through its Ethics in Government Act. (See Deontology*) Consequence-based ethics A consequence-based approach to ethics gives priority to the value we attach to the results of actions. It emphasizes that the effects of our actions on ourselves and others tend to play an overriding role in ethical decision-making. It claims that we should assess the probable good and bad effects of the different options open to us in a situation and use



these assessments as the basis for deciding what should or should not be done. (See Utilitarianism*) Cultural relativism* Cultural relativists appeal to anthropological data indicating that moral rightness and wrongness vary from place to place. They maintain that the concepts of rightness and wrongness are contingent on cultural beliefs and that these concepts are meaningless apart from the specific context in which they arise. They claim that patterns of culture can only be understood as unique wholes and that moral beliefs about normal behavior are closely connected in a culture. As a result, there are no absolute or universal moral standards that could apply to all persons at all times. For the cultural relativist, a moral standard is simply a cultural product. (T. Beauchamp) Deontology* The term derives from the Greek word for duty, deon. Deontology involves any ethical system that centers on duty (e.g., truth telling, promise-keeping) to assess the ethical values of action, as contrasted with ethical theories that appeal to a good end (See Utilitarianism*) or right character (See Virtue ethics*). ♦Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness or wrongness of actions depend on whether they correspond to our duty or not. (Hinman) ♦Ethical systems that consider certain features in the moral act itself to have intrinsic value. For example, for the deontologist, there is something right about truth telling, even when it may cause pain or harm, and there is something wrong about lying, even when it may produce good consequences. (Pojman) DEP Ethical decision-making model The DEP ethical decision-making model divides decision making into four stages: recognition, judgement, intent to act, and behaviour. It identifies five categories of factors that can be measured and that have been shown to influence ethical decision making: individual values, individual ethical approaches, organizational ethical climate, situational intensity, and individual moral development. The model was developed by the Defence Ethics Program with the assistance of academic experts after an extensive review of the literature. It serves as the basis for a periodic CF and DND wide survey. Doctrine of double effect* ♦The doctrine holds that there is a morally relevant difference between intending evil and foreseeing that it will occur as an unintended side effect of morally permissible acts. Its purpose is to justify an action having good results but also having potentially harmful effects. (Pojman) ♦The United States seems to have adopted a modification to the doctrine of double effect so that one may undertake military operations aimed at legitimate objectives or targets even though the operations will also have foreseeable “bad” consequences. Such operations become permissible when they meet the following necessary criteria: (1) The bad effect is unintended; (2) the bad effect is proportional to the desired military objective; (3) the bad effect is not a direct means to the good effect (e.g., bomb cities to



encourage peace talks); and (4) actions are taken to minimize the foreseeable bad effects even if it means accepting an increase risk to combatants. (Christopher) Ethical decision-making In the social and management sciences, ethical decision-making is treated as a decision making process that includes ethical factors and gives them an overriding or constraining role in all situations requiring decision and action. A basic decision making process is considered to have a minimum of four stages: recognition, judgement, intention to act and action. (See DEP Ethical decision-making model) Ethical dilemma A dilemma is a problematic situation for which there are two or more possible options to resolve it, but where each of the options is considered either equally valid and desirable or equally undesirable. In addition, there does not seem to be any other criteria available for choosing between the options. It is useful to distinguish between three types of ethical dilemmas: a) the uncertainty dilemma, b) the competing values dilemma, and c) the harm dilemma. Ethics Ethics in the Defence Ethics Program is described as being concerned with: a) determining right and wrong; b) defining the principles and obligations that govern right action and practices of individuals and institutions in society; c) being a person of integrity; and d) choosing to do what is right. The main approaches to ethics today that are included in the DEP are: care based, consequence based, rule based, self-interest based, virtue based, and a multiple-approach basis. ♦Ethics is a discipline that is long in tradition and rich in variety. Its development in Western civilization has been subject to two main influences over the millennia: the Greek tradition focusing on the “good life” and Judeo-Christian tradition stressing “doing what is right”. These two traditions in combination with historical and cultural factors have produced a multiplicity of ethical systems. In general, the discipline of ethics involves: a) establishing the validity of an ideal of human character to be achieved, ultimate goals to be striven for, and norms and standards for governing behaviour; b) analyzing and explaining moral judgements and behaviour; and c) investigating and clarifying the meanings of moral terms and statements. (Denise, White, Peterfreund) Ethics of care* An ethics of care has its roots in the work of feminist moral philosophers and, in particular, has been strongly influenced by the work of Carol Gilligan on moral development. It emphasizes the relational dimension of our lives and gives priority to the humane treatment that we are all owed as human beings. An ethics of care focuses on our responsibility for the well-being of others and ourselves and is keenly aware of the inequalities of power that are present in virtually all relationships. It places a premium on security from danger and harm. It is contrasted with a morality of justice emphasizing fairness and equality, which proponents of the approach claim is a dominant characteristic of ethical theories developed by male philosophers throughout the history of western civilization. It is only recently that an ethics of care has become a widely used



basis for ethics in western societies. (Hinman; Ch. 10 contains an interview with Carol Gilligan talking about voice and ethical theory and a detailed “Bibliographical Essay” on the ethics of care and feminist moral theory.) Ethos Ethos can be described as the “characteristic spirit and beliefs of community, people, system, literary work, or person”. Ethics is at the heart of this spirit and represents a core subset of the beliefs. (See Military ethos) Harm dilemma The harm dilemma represents a special case of an ethical dilemma and involves a situation in which every available option worked out in an ethical decision making situation will cause harm or injury. For example, in military operations involving destruction of strategic points, it is often inevitable to cause collateral damages. The doctrine of double effect* has been used at times to justify morally taking action based on one of the options. Military Ethos The military ethos embodies the spirit that binds the military profession together. It is a living spirit that finds its full expression through the conduct of members of the profession of arms. It clarifies how members view their responsibilities, apply their expertise, and how they express their unique military identity. It establishes an ethical framework for the professional conduct of all activities and military operations. The uniquely Canadian military ethos is made up of three fundamental components: beliefs and expectations about military service; Canadian values; and Canadian military values. It affirms core notions of military service: unlimited liability, fighting spirit, discipline and teamwork. It reflects that the legitimacy of the profession of arms in Canada requires that it embody the same values and beliefs as the society it defends and that the values of the profession must be in harmony with the values of that society. It defines the subordination of the armed forces to civilian control and the rule of law. Finally, the ethos places a special emphasis on the Canadian military values of duty, loyalty, integrity, and courage. Ultimately, it is the military ethos, incorporating fundamental Canadian values, that differentiates a member of the Canadian profession of arms from ill-disciplined irregulars, mercenaries or members of another armed force that lacks defining values. (Chapters 1-2, Duty with honour . Ch. 2 contains a full and detailed articulation of the military ethos.) Multiple-Approach to Ethics (See Pluralist approach to ethics). The DEP has used the expression ‘multiple-approach’ and the literature tends to use ‘pluralist approach’. Pluralism* The belief that there are multiple perspectives on an issue, each of which contains part of the truth but none of which contain the whole truth. In ethics, moral pluralism is the



belief that different moral theories each capture part of the truth of the moral life, but none of those theories has the entire answer. For example, an ethics of character [See Virtue ethics*] must be completed by an ethics of action [See Deontology* and Utilitarianism*]. For example, although we may possess the virtue of compassion, we must both take into account the consequences of our compassionate actions and treat other persons as ends in themselves when we exercise that virtue. On the other hand, an ethics of action must also be completed by an ethics of character. For example, a person with good character will not apply moral principles mechanically but will be sensitive to the nuances of the situation. He or she will have developed a practical understanding of life that allows one to balance the potentially competing concerns about rights, duty, and consequences. (Hinman) Pluralist approach to ethics A pluralist approach to ethics acknowledges the reasonableness of a multiplicity of approaches to ethics but does not give priority to any one of them. It treats the different approaches to ethics as a network of checks and balances that may or may not be in agreement. A pluralist approach to ethics argues that in some situations all approaches to ethics may agree on the right course of action – for example, all would agree that the torture of innocent children for fun is wrong. However, in other situations, individuals must either individually or in a group work out the best approach to decide what they should or should not do. Thus, in this perspective, disagreement may lead to a more innovative way of dealing with a situation. A pluralist approach to ethical decision making allows us to draw on one or a combination of approaches to ethics: care based, consequence based, rule based, self-interest based, and virtue based. (see Pluralism*) Positivism (legal positivism)* Intending to oppose natural law theory, legal positivism denies any necessary “connection between law and morality”. Some of its central theses among a loose cluster are: (1) law is definable and explainable without moral and evaluative predicates or presuppositions; (2) the law (for example, of England today) is identifiable from exclusively factual sources (e.g. legislation, judicial precedence). Most versions understand positive law as products of human will. Some versions of logical positivism will go as far as to deny that there is knowable moral truth. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) Preventative ethics program A preventative ethics program adopts a two-prong approach to ethics: it combines a strong rules based component with a related values based component. Typically, a preventative program begins by identifying areas of organizational practice that are considered to be exposed to high risks of non-compliance: for example, practices exposed to fraud. To encourage ethical behaviour, the program emphasizes the importance both of the rules, regulations and policies governing those practices and of the related ethical values. A preventative approach served as the basis for the Australian Department of Defence’s original Defence Ethics and Fraud Awareness Campaign (DEFAC) in 1991.



Prima facie* The phrase derives from the Latin meaning “at first glance”. When used in the discussion of an idea or a principle, it will imply that the idea or principle should be accepted as valid until something leads us to reject it or to limit its scope. ♦In ethics, this phrase is usually associated with the concept of duty. A prima facie duty has an initial presumption of obligation in its favour. It is a duty that is considered binding but may, upon closer inspection, turn out to be overridden by other stronger duties given a set of particular circumstances. (Hinman; Pojman) Professional Ethic The foundation of a professional ethic rests on a profession’s existing traditions and values. Ethics tends to be understood in terms of the practices already present within the profession and of the attitudes, reasoning, and actions of its members. Although a professional ethic is open to change to address new issues, it tends to require that the profession’s existing approach to ethics be the framework for all change. It typically includes formal and informal codes expressing rules and standards governing the conduct of members of a professional group: formal codes are written down and published in some form and informal codes are perpetuated through training and example. Rights ♦Rights are entitlements to do something without interference from other people (negative rights) or entitlements that obligate others to do something positive to assist you (positive rights). Some rights (natural rights, human rights) belong to everyone by nature or simply by virtue of being human; some rights (legal rights) belong to people by virtue of their membership in a particular political state; other rights (moral rights) are based in acceptance of a particular moral theory. (Hinman) ♦A right is an entitlement to do, to demand, to enjoy, to be, to have done for us. Rights may be rights to act, to exist, to enjoy, to demand. We speak of rights as being possessed, exercised, and enjoyed. We also speak of our rights as being rights to – as in the rights to life, liberty and happiness – not as rights against, as has so often mistakenly been claimed. (T. Beauchamp) ♦In their strongest sense, rights are justified claims to the protection of persons’ important interests. When the rights are effective, this protection is provided as something that is owed to persons for their own sakes. The upholding of rights is thus essential for human dignity. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) Rule-based Ethics A rule based approach to ethics gives priority to rules, regulations and policies as a means of determining ethical behaviour. It assesses the right thing to do in a situation by checking for a rule that addresses or covers the situation. The law is considered an absolute in determining what should or should not be done. A rule-based ethics will prefer programs that develop elaborate and comprehensive codes designed to deal with as many situations as possible and emphasizes compliance with rules. It. (See II – Deontology* and Utilitarianism*)



Self-interest based ethics A self-interest approach to ethics stresses the importance of valuing ourselves and of self-respect. However, this approach adopts a more radical stance when it gives priority to the individual from the point of view of the individual’s own interest. A self-interest based ethics advises individuals to be primarily concerned with how the outcome of a particular decision might affect them personally. Uncertainty Dilemma The uncertainty dilemma represents the most general type of ethical dilemma. It refers to a problematic situation where doing what is right is not clear because there are equally valid reasons in support of the best two or more options worked out to resolve the situation. Utilitarianism* ♦Utilitarianism is an approach to morality that treats pleasure or desire-satisfaction as the sole element in human good and that regards the morality of actions as entirely dependent on consequences or results for human (or sentient) well-being. (Oxford Companion to Philosophy) ♦The theory that the right action is one that maximizes utility. Sometimes utility is defined in terms of pleasure (Jeremy Bentham), happiness (J.S. Mill), ideals (G.E. Moore and H. Rashdall), or interests (R.B. Perry). Its motto, which characterizes one version of utilitarianism, is “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Utilitarian further divide into act- and rule–utilitarian. Act-utilitarians hold that the right act in a situation is one that results (or is most likely to result) in the best consequences, whereas rule-utilitarians hold that the right act is one that conforms to the set of rules that on the whole will result in the best consequences (as compared with other sets of rules). (Pojman) Values Values are rooted in our culture and ways of life. They are part of the foundation upon which moral reasoning is based and serve as guides for decisions and actions. Some authors define them as enduring beliefs about what is considered to have important worth. They draw a useful distinction between values as means to obtaining something of worth (an instrument to an end) and values as something that is good in itself. Values based ethics program Values based ethics programs adopt a comprehensive approach to ethics: they combine a comprehensive values based component with a related rules based component. They tend to stress the principles and attitudes that support ethics in the institution, while acknowledging the importance of the regulations, rules, and policies that are meant to constrain discretionary judgement in specific situations. These programs tend to advocate transparency and usually state publicly the set of values by which they propose to operate and by which they accept to be judged. A values based approach has been adopted by the Canadian Federal government and is the basis for the Defence Ethics Program.



Virtue Ethics* ♦One of the features of the concept of virtue is that it always requires some account of certain features of social and moral life in terms of which it has to be defined and explained. For example, virtue may be defined in terms of social roles or in terms of the good life conceived as the goal of human action. (MacIntyre) ♦A theory of virtue ethics was first put forward by Aristotle as aretaic ethics. Arete is from the Greek and means “goodness” [of function], “excellence” [of function] or “virtue”. For Aristotle, the individual is essentially a member of a social unit and a moral virtue is a habit of behaviour, a trait of character that is both socially and morally valued. (T. Beauchamp) ♦For Aristotle, the basis of ethical assessment is character. Rather than concentrating on the ethics of actions or duties, his understanding of ethics focuses on the character and dispositions of the agent. Aretaic ethics emphasizes being a certain type of person who will manifest who she or he is in appropriate actions. (Pojman) Virtue based ethics A virtue based approach to ethics gives priority to living a good life and to achieving excellence. In as much as it requires ethical decision making be based on what we achieve in life, a virtue-based approach has affinities with consequence-based ethics. However, rather than attach value to the results of actions, as does a consequence-based ethics, a virtue based approach focuses on the life-long goal to be achieved – being a person of good character. It starts with the idea that a person of good character will strive to do the right thing. Some of the virtues possessed by such a person are integrity, courage, compassion, and a sense of justice. (see Virtue Ethics*)

Annex D – Bibliography


73

ANNEX D

BIBLIOGRAPHY



74

NOTE. A number of books and videos on ethics are available at the Learning and Career Centres (LCC) across Canada. Please contact the LCC in your area to arrange for a short-term loan of desired ethics materials. Government and Department of National Defence An Ethical Relationship. (Ottawa ON: Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) & Chief of Review Services/ Department of National Defence, 2003). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Available from Heritage Canada.) Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada (Kingston, ON: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2003). Web: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/palm/palm_e.asp Ethics in Practice: Proceedings of the Conference on Ethics in Canadian Defence, Ottawa, 30-31 October 1997. (Ottawa ON: Department of National Defence/ Chief of Review Services, 1997). Fundamentals of Canadian Defence Ethics. (Ottawa ON: Department of National Defence/ Chief of Review Services, 1999). Kernaghan, Kenneth. The Ethics Era in Canadian Public Administration. (Ottawa ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996). Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations (Kingston, ON: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, 2005). Many Faces of Ethics in Defence: Proceedings of the Conference on Ethics in Canadian Defence, Ottawa, 24-25 October 1996. (Ottawa ON: Department of National Defence/ Chief of Review Services, 1996). Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. (Ottawa ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2003). Web: www.tbs-sct.gc.ca Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Available from Heritage Canada.) General Baier, Annette C. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994) Beauchamp, Tom L. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. 2nd edit.(New York: McGraw Hill, Inc..1991)



75

Blackburn, Pierre. L’éthique – fondements et problématique contemporaines. (ERPI Inc. 1996). Canto-Sperber, Monique (éd.) Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale. (Paris : Presse Universitaire de France, 1996). Christopher, Paul. The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues. (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1994) Denise, Theodore C., Nicholas P. White, Sheldon P. Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics. (Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, 2005) Dworkin, Ronald. Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996). Fishkin, James S. The Limits of Obligations. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982). Hinman, Lawrence M. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. 3rd edit. (Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003). Honderich, Ted. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) Kant, Immanuel. The Moral Law: Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and analyzed by H.J. Paton, (Routledge, London, 1948) Kekes, John. The Morality of Pluralism (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993) Kernaghan K. & Langford, J. The Responsible Public Servant. (Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada and Halifax and The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1990). Kidder, R.M. How Good People Make Tough Choices : Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. (New York: Firestone, 1995). Métayer, Michel. La philosophie éthique : Enjeux et débats actuels. (ERPI Inc., 1997) Gilligan, Carol, Janie V. Ward, and Jill M. Taylor, (eds.). Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological Theory and Education. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984)



76

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism: Text with Critical Essays, edit Samuel Gorovitz (Indianapolis, IN, Bobbs Merrill, 1971) --- On Liberty: Annotated Text, Sources and Background, edit. David Spitz (New York, Norton, 1975) Noddings, Nel. Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education (New York, Teachers College Press, 2002) Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 4th edit. (Belmont, Cal: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2002). Rawls, John. “Justice as Reciprocity” (1971) in John Rawls: Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman, edit., ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 190-224) --- A Theory of Justice (London: Oxford University Press, 1971) Rest, J. & Narvaez, D. (eds.). Moral Development in the Professions. (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Pub., 1994). Shay, J. Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. (New York: Touchstone, 1994). Thompson, Dennis F. Political Ethics and Public Office. (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1987). Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (New York, Basic Books, 1983) Videos Ethics in the Workplace, (also in French – L’éthique en milieu de travail) VHS, 19 min 30 sec, Produced by the Defence Ethics Program, Chief Review Services, Ottawa. Art Direction by ADM (PA). Updated March 2000. Cat. no.: 21-0748A. This video provides a good introduction to some of the basic conceptual approaches to ethical decision making. It also addresses some issues of conflict of interest in a public service environment. High Target (also in French - Viser haut), VHS, 57 min 58 sec, Produced by the Defence Ethics Program, Chief Review Services, Ottawa. 1998. Cat. no: 21-0750A. This video addresses values and ethics and issues of conflict of interest in a Canadian Forces military environment.

Annex E – Contacts


77

ANNEX E

CONTACTS

Annex E – Contacts


78

LIST OF CONTACTS

DEFENCE ETHICS PROGRAM

(http://www.dnd.ca/ethics/index_e.asp)

Program Authority : Chief Review Services (613) 992-7975

Director - Defence Ethics Program (613) 996-0544 Program Management (613) 992-4717 Program Management –2 (613) 995-7958 Conflict of Interest Section (613) 995-0229 DEP Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) (613) 996-0527

Research and Development (613) 992-7451 Research and Development -2 (613) 995-8846

Mailing Address: Defence Ethics Program Chief Review Services National Defence Headquarters 9 Centre Block South 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa ON K1A OK2

Facsimile: (613) 992-5763

Resource Centre for the Defence Ethics Program Books, videos, brochures, and posters on Defence ethics are available. For more information, contact the DEP CWO at (613) 996-0527

introduction to defence ethics

Documents