Do professional "military ethicists" exist?
October 26, 2014 6:21 PM Subscribe
Does the military have institutionalized roles in its bureaucracy for ethicists analogous to the role of 'bioethicists' in the life sciences?
I was trying to think of roles professional philosophers occupy outside of the academy, and immediately thought of bioethicists.
My reasoning: if the life sciences deal with ethical dilemmas arising from the project of enabling life in a way that is widely recognized as requiring the contribution of bioethicists (alongside life scientists and legal specialists), then this recognition should apply equally if not moreso to the project of ending / threatening to end life (i.e. the miltary), right? Which would require the contribution of something equivalent to bioethicists--a "military ethicist" or something like that. Do such professionals exist? In what ways and to what extent are they part of military processes?
I'm sure there are many academic philosophers who study issues related to the military. But I'm curious specifically about whether the military itself hires or otherwise regularly enrolls the services of ethicists in its activities. Thanks!
I was trying to think of roles professional philosophers occupy outside of the academy, and immediately thought of bioethicists.
My reasoning: if the life sciences deal with ethical dilemmas arising from the project of enabling life in a way that is widely recognized as requiring the contribution of bioethicists (alongside life scientists and legal specialists), then this recognition should apply equally if not moreso to the project of ending / threatening to end life (i.e. the miltary), right? Which would require the contribution of something equivalent to bioethicists--a "military ethicist" or something like that. Do such professionals exist? In what ways and to what extent are they part of military processes?
I'm sure there are many academic philosophers who study issues related to the military. But I'm curious specifically about whether the military itself hires or otherwise regularly enrolls the services of ethicists in its activities. Thanks!
Absolutely yes, and it's an area of study that's at least as old as Augustine. The phenomenon of international conventions on warfare (of which the most famous is the Geneva Convention) is mainly an attempt to normalise military ethics. The training that soldiers and especially officers/leaders receive in all armed forces is at least partly ethical: what war is and what it is not; what/who is and is not a target; what orders are lawful and what is not, and so on.
From what I know of the Australian system, these kinds of ethicists work as part of the defence forces' legal branch, and approach questions of warfare ethics and related fields (humanitarian law, international law, international agreements) as well as the kinds of workplace law that go on in the ADF as a large employer (disciplinary law, equal opportunity, integrity/anti-corruption etc.)
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 7:57 PM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
From what I know of the Australian system, these kinds of ethicists work as part of the defence forces' legal branch, and approach questions of warfare ethics and related fields (humanitarian law, international law, international agreements) as well as the kinds of workplace law that go on in the ADF as a large employer (disciplinary law, equal opportunity, integrity/anti-corruption etc.)
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 7:57 PM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think your reasoning is flawed-- the reason for 'bioethicist' as a position is because traditional ethics deals with human behaviour, using models and thinking from ancient times, as well as modern variations upon it. These forms of rationality didn't really cover the developments in medicine i.e the rights of a cell/genome are not obviously the same as or covered by the rights of a fully developed human being. So, a new field was created.
The old field, ethics, covers the sort of stuff you are talking about. So there are ethicists, yes, and their work can be influential in areas like the military, but it's not distinct in the way that bioethicics is.
posted by jojobobo at 7:59 PM on October 26, 2014
The old field, ethics, covers the sort of stuff you are talking about. So there are ethicists, yes, and their work can be influential in areas like the military, but it's not distinct in the way that bioethicics is.
posted by jojobobo at 7:59 PM on October 26, 2014
A Duck Duck Go search yields multiple results for Professor of Military Ethics. The position clearly exists.
posted by alms at 8:07 PM on October 26, 2014
posted by alms at 8:07 PM on October 26, 2014
Also, the kinds of work that fiasco de gama is talking about is, I would argue, not the same as what you think of with a bioethicist, and it's not like the military 'hiring an ethicist'. The military does not weigh up the pros and cons of each decision according to morality. They act in accordance with the law-- international or national-- and are obviously also influenced by politics. But the idea that they weigh up the morality of bombing a particular city or individual on a case by case basis is just not how the world works anymore.
If international law or national law is to change, then there might be a case for an ethicist to get involved, but the field of ethics is contentious-- there are many 'ethical' ways to come to different decisions, and the thinking is done by academics, whose work might influence policy or the law, but they don't make the law.
posted by jojobobo at 8:09 PM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
If international law or national law is to change, then there might be a case for an ethicist to get involved, but the field of ethics is contentious-- there are many 'ethical' ways to come to different decisions, and the thinking is done by academics, whose work might influence policy or the law, but they don't make the law.
posted by jojobobo at 8:09 PM on October 26, 2014 [3 favorites]
Sorry to threadsit (my last post!) but looking at those ppl's bios reveals that they are academics who teach and/or write on the subject of military ethics. So still not what you had in mind, I thought? They are not hired by the military to make decisions about military action, as far as their bio (and my knowledge of the field, as a politics teacher and student) indicates.
posted by jojobobo at 8:14 PM on October 26, 2014
posted by jojobobo at 8:14 PM on October 26, 2014
Response by poster: the reason for 'bioethicist' as a position is because traditional ethics deals with human behaviour, using models and thinking from ancient times, as well as modern variations upon it. These forms of rationality didn't really cover the developments in medicine i.e the rights of a cell/genome are not obviously the same as or covered by the rights of a fully developed human being. So, a new field was created.
Interesting. I take your point that bioethics is at least partly distinguished by a preoccupation with "new" ethical questions and fields like the ones you name. Torture, lawful vs unlawful killing, war and peace--of course, these are very old questions. But don't new technologies and circumstances related to modern warfare also push the boundaries of traditional ethical frameworks? I'm thinking issues relating perhaps to the automation of warfare (e.g. drones), extraordinarily destructive weaponry and their social implications (e.g. WMDs and mutually assured destruction), omnipresent surveillance--issues ancients didn't have to deal with so much.
In any case, I suppose my question tries to focus in particular on whether and in what ways philosophers are a part of actual military activities (pedagogy for its personnel, most obviously, but also perhaps in planning, policy, R&D, and that grey area between norms and legal process). I wouldn't imagine philosophers are being given the second key on the nuclear sub or anything like that (i.e. having any role in individual military decisions), but I do wonder whether they play any role in, for example, the formulation of frameworks for dealing with new problems/solutions and in conceptualizing for the military itself what they're doing and why. I imagine they might also serve a legitimizing function (i.e. due diligence hiring of token ethicist to secure credibility of new initiative)
posted by eagle-bear at 8:26 PM on October 26, 2014
Interesting. I take your point that bioethics is at least partly distinguished by a preoccupation with "new" ethical questions and fields like the ones you name. Torture, lawful vs unlawful killing, war and peace--of course, these are very old questions. But don't new technologies and circumstances related to modern warfare also push the boundaries of traditional ethical frameworks? I'm thinking issues relating perhaps to the automation of warfare (e.g. drones), extraordinarily destructive weaponry and their social implications (e.g. WMDs and mutually assured destruction), omnipresent surveillance--issues ancients didn't have to deal with so much.
In any case, I suppose my question tries to focus in particular on whether and in what ways philosophers are a part of actual military activities (pedagogy for its personnel, most obviously, but also perhaps in planning, policy, R&D, and that grey area between norms and legal process). I wouldn't imagine philosophers are being given the second key on the nuclear sub or anything like that (i.e. having any role in individual military decisions), but I do wonder whether they play any role in, for example, the formulation of frameworks for dealing with new problems/solutions and in conceptualizing for the military itself what they're doing and why. I imagine they might also serve a legitimizing function (i.e. due diligence hiring of token ethicist to secure credibility of new initiative)
posted by eagle-bear at 8:26 PM on October 26, 2014
The Israeli concept of tohar ha-neshek (“the purity of arms”) might interest you.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:39 PM on October 26, 2014
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:39 PM on October 26, 2014
The ethical questions you're raising are asked and answered by politicians, people negotiating treaties, and other non-uniform personnel. It's a civilian function. The answers are codified in law and policy and taught to uniform personnel, whose job it is to follow those laws and policies.
posted by alms at 9:17 PM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by alms at 9:17 PM on October 26, 2014 [4 favorites]
There are military academics who study and teach ethics, including military ethics, but that is not quite what you are asking for. And there are military lawyers, including ones who help draft rules of engagement, and consider compliance with humanitarian law. But this is also not quite what you are asking for.
I am not aware of anything matching your request.
Given the sheer scale of the military organizations on this planet, there may well be some military ethicists, parallel to bioethicists, like you have in mind. But it doesn't seem to be a routine part of military life, as it is in life sciences. (We have bioethicists because life sciences research is heavily regulated to require ethical constraint. It's hard to imagine a similarly restrictive regime being applied to military force, in the US anyway.)
posted by grobstein at 9:38 PM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am not aware of anything matching your request.
Given the sheer scale of the military organizations on this planet, there may well be some military ethicists, parallel to bioethicists, like you have in mind. But it doesn't seem to be a routine part of military life, as it is in life sciences. (We have bioethicists because life sciences research is heavily regulated to require ethical constraint. It's hard to imagine a similarly restrictive regime being applied to military force, in the US anyway.)
posted by grobstein at 9:38 PM on October 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
While not quite an "ethicist", it is my understanding the role of military lawyers has grown significantly with the increased use of drone strikes by the US military. I remember reading an article about the running of a drone strike control room, and how there is often (always?) a lawyer present who must approve the use of force in the situation. Unfortunately I cannot source the article right now.
posted by sophist at 10:31 PM on October 26, 2014
posted by sophist at 10:31 PM on October 26, 2014
I'm aware that the Norwegian armed forces have employed people on roughly the kinds of role you're looking for, as they have a program called "Respekt, ansvar, mot" (RAM, or roughly "respect, responsibility, courage" in English) that teaches the ethics of what they do. Someone must have developed the program. I haven't been able to find out who, though, after five minutes on Google.
Many militaries also have a chaplain corps, presumably with differing levels of influence.
posted by Harald74 at 12:14 AM on October 27, 2014
Many militaries also have a chaplain corps, presumably with differing levels of influence.
posted by Harald74 at 12:14 AM on October 27, 2014
Australia has a Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:01 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:01 AM on October 27, 2014
Sophist, could this be the article you're thinking of?
posted by grobstein at 6:41 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by grobstein at 6:41 AM on October 27, 2014
If the life sciences deal with ethical dilemmas arising from the project of enabling life in a way that is widely recognized as requiring the contribution of bioethicists (alongside life scientists and legal specialists), then this recognition should apply equally if not moreso to the project of ending / threatening to end life (i.e. the miltary)
This exact issue has come up recently in the context of the use of military drones. There were apparently extensive discussions within the White House and military establishment about whether and how drones could be used to kill people and where they could be used to kill people. My impression is that these discussions included both the legal issues and the ethical issues.
I don't know offhand who contributed. Undoubtedly lawyers were part of the process. You might be able to find out who some of the other participants were.
posted by alms at 7:10 AM on October 27, 2014
This exact issue has come up recently in the context of the use of military drones. There were apparently extensive discussions within the White House and military establishment about whether and how drones could be used to kill people and where they could be used to kill people. My impression is that these discussions included both the legal issues and the ethical issues.
I don't know offhand who contributed. Undoubtedly lawyers were part of the process. You might be able to find out who some of the other participants were.
posted by alms at 7:10 AM on October 27, 2014
The US Naval Academy has a Center for Ethical Leadership. A colleague who is a philosopher specializing in military ethics has a research fellowship there this year.
posted by MsMolly at 9:08 AM on October 27, 2014
posted by MsMolly at 9:08 AM on October 27, 2014
My brother was in the ADF as a military police officer for 20 or so years and ethics is precisely what he used to do and is one of the things he continues to do as a contractor for the UN, police forces and defence forces internationally, so based on that I suggest it is definitely a thing.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:14 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:14 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
The U.S. military doesn't have ethicists per se as an assigned function in operational units, but law of war training is standard for all officers, and sufficiently high command levels have assigned attorney-advisers who have law of war (targeting, POWs, etc) and rules of engagement duties.
Professional ethics in the sense of anti-corruption in contracting, objective systems for awarding promotions and decorations, etc. are deeply integrated into the military through officer training and enforced full time through inspector general offices, and specialized JAG and civilian legal offices.
posted by MattD at 5:02 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Professional ethics in the sense of anti-corruption in contracting, objective systems for awarding promotions and decorations, etc. are deeply integrated into the military through officer training and enforced full time through inspector general offices, and specialized JAG and civilian legal offices.
posted by MattD at 5:02 PM on October 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:30 PM on October 26, 2014