Air University Review, March- April 1968
Leadership is the key to every act by any group of human beings; without leadership there is only anarchy. The leader directs a group toward either “good” or “bad” goals. Leadership therefore tends to stabilize a society whether or not that society views its goals at any point along the moral spectrum of good and bad. Obviously, the degree of stability determines the strength of that society, and the degree of “goodness” or “badness” denotes its standard of values. Two examples of values at either end of this moral spectrum illustrate the stability and resultant strength of the two societies: Revolutionary America and Nazi Germany.
Of the many conflicts in history, the American Revolutionary War should be
recognized as one of the most notable. The probability of success under the
severe conditions and imbalance of power of the time was extremely poor. Yet
despite impossible odds and intolerable conditions in the struggle with the
world’s most experienced and professional army, General Washington led his
revolutionaries to victory. At the base of this historical success must have
been an intangible driving force of such intensity that fledgling
A second example of values that inspired strength was Hitler’s
He who would exist must fight; and he who does not battle in this world of eternal conflict does not earn his right to existence.1
Although it is another matter, the reader might ask: If Hitler’s ethics were
so well stated and at the base of
Ethics comprise a peculiarly interesting rationale that determines the quality of leadership in any organization. Since the leader is decisive in the military, and since a very significant expression of a state’s strength lies in its military establishment, it follows that the ultimate success of that nation-state’s military organization hinges on the way its leaders view and apply ethics. I maintain that ethics, as understood by military leaders, will determine how well any nation-state is able to achieve its national objectives.
Decisions and leadership are practically synonymous concepts in the military. The key to our country’s survival may literally rest upon our military leaders’ decisions. Since ethics must be involved in decisions, a leader can never accurately test the “rightness” or “wrongness” of his decisions unless he has a standard against which he can measure them. I contend that a body of values or code of ethics would provide him with that measurement.
My present purpose is to define a particular set of ethics applicable to the Air Force, but first I will discuss ethics as seen from the military viewpoint. My ultimate aim is to suggest a written code of ethics for Air Force officers, the adoption of which would help dispel any confusion officers might have about ethical behavior. For I contend that no officer today can afford not to know exactly where he stands in today’s world of continuous conflict. I do not pretend to offer a code of ethics that will stand all tests and criticism; the proposals in this article are my own attempt to construct a code within certain limits and criteria. I am especially interested in the reaction of other Air Force officers to the need for such a code. I believe that discussion of the subject will stimulate an interest in a professional code; the more talk about the subject, the more likely it is that the Air Force will take up the subject officially.
I believe that the impact of a code of ethics for Air Force officers will have the following effects:
1. It will induce pride of belonging to the Air Force, since it will define the standards required for “membership” in the profession.
2. It will provide a guidepost of professional and personal behavior for Air Force officers; as such, it will serve as one concrete measure of an officer’s efficiency.
3. It will standardize and aid in understanding the ethics demanded of an officer; with proper emphasis, the code’s effects will eventually shape and raise the quality of the officer corps.
4. It will eventually help raise the desirability of the Air Force as a career, since the image of the officer should be substantially raised in the public’s eye.
5. It will make unnecessary various regulations, directives, and codes for specific situations (such as the “conflict of interest” regulation, AFR 30-30).
Many people avoid the subject of ethics simply because it is usually accompanied by an aura of some “untouchable” quality for the nonacademician. Therefore, my task is to try to reduce a few key words to levels of understanding: code, values or ethics, and military professionalism. Our level of understanding of these words should be nonabstract and in terms of military thinking, which is essentially conservative and pragmatic. The military mind must be more realistic than idealistic, since it is basically pessimistic in its view of human nature; i.e., human nature is imperfect and at the root of conflict.
A key word is “code” itself; our “code” must contain the “values” or “ethics” that reflect the “military professionalism” which is our group’s essence. I define a code as a written accumulation of human experiences which, in the context of a particular organization or group, are considered “good” and therefore are worthy of documenting as a reminder to the members of that organization of the standards of conduct considered necessary to achieve organizational goals. The “values” to be found within a code are those which are unique to the purposes of that organization.
Values differ from organization to organization. Values are those subjective judgments which members of an organization consider “good” or “bad” with regard to meeting the expectations of the organization’s goals. Ethics are reflected in the values chosen as acceptable by an organization and are a way of managing negative human desires and urges for the good and general welfare of that organization.
Military professionalism is distinct from all other “professionalisms” in that it emphasizes the methods of organizing and managing conflict as an instrument in the service of the nation-state in which it exists and upon which the nation depends for its existence. The ethics of military professionalism give birth to the values of the military profession, and upon these a code can be built.
Military ethics, seen in the nonabstract context I have defined, are concerned primarily with managing the negative features of human nature toward a regulated goal. The military officer must understand this concept and commit himself to it; if he does not, he will be a liability to the mission in the face of crisis or danger. Faced with danger or crisis, the officer can ill afford to reflect upon the philosophical aspects of his decisions; he requires a standard of measurement which gives him immediate confidence that his decision is “right.”
To establish a basis for the decisions that are involved in the military profession of “conflict management,” the officer corps has developed certain devices that tend to channel the forces of the individual psychological makeup into distinctive common patterns. The officer uses these devices to prepare himself and his men for that crucial moment when their professionalism will be put to the ultimate test. Some of these devices are the uniform, the parade, the oath of office, the salute, special honors, awards, medals, and the privilege and status that accompany rank. I contend that our profession lacks a most important device: a code of ethics. Before we can construct a code, however, we must be acquainted with the criteria used to measure any code.
Many problems are inherent in the task of constructing a code of ethics, and they can be debated forever, since there is no absolute quality about ethics. Ethics, as we have seen in the examples of Nazi Germany and Revolutionary America, are relative only to one’s view of “good” or ‘‘bad.’’ However, one must have a basis of logic for each word used in a code. My logic depends on the following three factors: mechanics, suitability, and value insertion.
The first, mechanics, means that the code must serve an immediate and practical purpose. It must not be a vague statement of morality or pious platitudes. It must be concrete, comprehensible, and nonabstract. It must be timeless and unchanging. The mechanics of the code must include a nonabsolute quality; that is, it is not a law but is more a creed or way of life. As a creed it should instill in the officer confidence that he is following the expectations and standards of the profession. Finally, the code should not indicate a higher ethical standard than that which is realistic and attainable by the individuals of high quality whom the profession seeks to attract and retain.
The second factor, suitability, involves the expression of the desired standard which is created from the vast range of different morals, values, ideals, hopes, and attitudes held by many people to whom the code applies. This factor is the most difficult to determine even within the restricted context of the Air Force organization, since we are dealing with many different individuals.
The third and final factor in constructing a code is value insertion. This criterion might be briefly described as the patriotic tone of the code. This quality largely determines how the professional member will accept the code and its premises. Since emotions are a more primitive feature of man’s makeup than the intellectual training which he acquires, the proper appeal to emotion will have a more lasting impression on an individual. The emotional value imparted to an individual will tend to linger at the “gut level,” to be called upon when needed, much as a physiological reflex.
An outstanding example of a limited code of ethics is the “U.S. Fighting Man’s Code of Conduct,” constructed to serve the American military man, including the officer, immediately prior to or after his capture. In this code one finds the three fundamental factors of an ethical code: mechanics, suitability, and value insertion.
Having combined my definition of a code of ethics with the discussion of three criteria, I can now offer my own definition of what a code of ethics for Air Force officers should be: A written guide to the standards of personal and professional behavior expected of all U.S. Air Force officers in the management or employment of their aerospace weapons. It is ironic that the other major professions of the world have codes of ethics. In fact, many professions feel their codes are an indispensable part of their training and education. There are hundreds of codes, ranging from those for accounting and breweries to those for undertaking and warehousing. How is it, then, that we have not developed an Air Force code?
Since
Shortly after V-J Day, the Chief of Staff convened a special board of top military leaders and civilian sociologists, to consider the feasibility of a code of ethics for Air Force officers. It was felt that many Air Force leaders had become “aware of the fact that the problems of reconversion to a peacetime force were excessively complicated by the failure of many officers to live up to a code of behavior implicit in military life.”3 The board was chaired by Brigadier General Harold Q. Huglin.
The project was later transferred to
Wolverton’s research group performed exhaustive analysis over two years, using 460 Air Force officers as subjects. Unfortunately, the project was abandoned before the team could formally evaluate its data and publish its final report, probably due to the outbreak of the Korean conflict, when many members, including Colonel Wolverton, were reassigned.
To my knowledge, this research is the most thorough and authoritative work done in the area of ethics in the Air Force. Its final results and findings must be reviewed, evaluated, and interpreted before they can be officially approved for use in constructing a code of ethics. However, I consider this research and its eleven ethical themes so important that a brief review of them is appropriate. These themes establish a common set of values upon which we can construct a code of ethics unique to the Air Force officer’s profession.
1. Power Ethic: foregoing personal advantage out of consideration for the rights of other persons or groups of persons.
2. Manners Ethic: observance of decencies, in the practice of good manners, or in a respect for the sentiments of others.
3. Appetitive Ethic: foregoing sensory gratification to the extent that officers use liquor moderately, engage only in acceptable sexual relationships, and abstain from displays of violence.
4. Honesty Ethic: honesty in dealing with others and candor in admitting one’s own errors and faults.
5. Self-giving Ethic: aid to others, even at cost to self; as advice, rehabilitation, correcting injustices, recognizing the unrecognized merits, taking responsibility for others’ faults or failures.
6. Duty Ethic: professional thoroughness (steadiness, skill, and workmanship); or initiative and originality in meeting problems.
7. Tension Ethic: decisiveness, courage or firmness in the face of uncertainties, risks, or pressures.
8. Objectivity Ethic: seeking and sharing knowledge needed for the best performance of tasks; or a scientific attitude in dealing with problems or data, as opposed to arbitrariness, prejudice, rashness, or evasion.
9. Management Ethic: providing for the best possible functioning of personnel.
10. Prophetic Ethic: taking action with a view to remoter consequences; wider implications of relationships than those immediately involved, although the latter may seem to be more urgent.
11. Heroic Ethic: taking actions or positions which reaffirm or clarify purposes, principles, or procedures.4
Now that we have identified some values common and desirable to the Air Force officer, we must consider our uniqueness within the military establishment. As the air arm, the Air Force still suffers from the uncertainties of growth. However, we are entering maturity, and we have been entrusted with the most massive weapons of destruction known to man. We have been named by our nation as the pioneers and explorers of space. Our countrymen have assumed that we have the necessary vision, spirit, courage, and self-discipline to explore the new frontiers beyond our earth. As we enter maturity, I believe a code of ethics should state our resolve to muster the strength and confidence necessary to meet and conquer the future. I propose the following Aerospace Officer’s Code; I enjoin the reader to test it against the definitions and criteria I have outlined.
As an Aerospace Officer in the service of my nation, my highest duty is to
the American people, whose freedoms were forged from blood and sacrifice and
are expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
My profession demands unswerving dedication to my nation and its allies against all enemies. I will never knowingly or willingly break the high trust given to me in this mission. To do so would risk my nation’s security.
My profession demands that I be highly skilled in using or supporting the instruments of aerospace warfare. I pledge myself to be always prepared to use these instruments efficiently when called upon.
I am mindful that my position and responsibilities were made possible by the sacrifices of Americans before me; I will do my utmost to live up to their courage, strength, vision, and teamwork, which underlie my freedom. I dedicate myself without reservation as a proud member of the Aerospace Team.
To these ends I pledge myself as an officer and a gentleman to observe the following American ideals:
ARTICLE I
I will display self-control and honorable conduct at all times; unquestioned loyalty, obedience, honesty, and integrity are my watchwords.
ARTICLE II
I will not be deterred in serving my country when its survival is at stake; the call to duty, unselfishness, humaneness, and genuine concern for my men, as well as all men, will guide me toward this end.
ARTICLE III
I command awesome aerospace weapons for my country. Yet this grave responsibility serves to constantly remind me that I am a humble and modest man, in peace or in war, dedicated to the principles of self-determination, freedom, and peace.
ARTICLE IV
Above all, as an Aerospace Officer whose realm of duty is both on earth and in space, I realize that I must be strong and uncompromising in my convictions, courage, and vision. I draw these strengths from the trust and confidence given to me by my nation. As an American myself, I will always trust in my men, my fellow officers, my team, and my nation’s principles that permit man to choose his own way.
Throughout this article I examined the implicit question whether there is actually a need for a code of ethics. I believe I have answered the question in the affirmative. But I pose the problem with the question: Are we as Air Force officers ready to meet the challenges demanded today? We have inherited a place in American society quite unlike that which our military forebears held. We now hold the unique position of having important responsibilities in technological, economic, moral, and political roles. The American public, in spite of temporary and localized ebbs and tides of opinion, has great trust in the Air Force if for no other reason than it is the bulwark of defense in an age haunted by such expressions as “overkill” and “total annihilation.” However, in spite of the Air Force officer’s awesome role in history, he is not viewed by the public as a professional.
Many reports place Air Force officers near the bottom of any comparative rating scale of the various professions. In 1958 a thesis by Lieutenant Colonel Milton Frank, USAF, ranked the Air Force officer twelfth out of fourteen professions ranging from doctors and lawyers to television announcers and teachers.5 Many Air Force officers are concerned about our current state of ethics and suggest in their theses and articles that we must establish some higher ethical standard than we now have.
I believe so much evidence points up not only a possible real lack of ethics but also an absence of standards expected of the officer that we cannot rationalize the question with the usual platitudes. I realize that the mere creation and adoption of a code of ethics will not change things overnight. But at least we will have defined what is expected of the Air Force officer. With a well-written code of ethics, no officer could deny what his relationship to himself, his peers, his service, or his country should be. Somehow the mere fact that ethical values committed to the written word can make them more meaningful seems to me reason enough for us to adopt a code of ethics without further delay.
In this world, where the lines between freedom and slavery have been drawn, we hold the gravest responsibility ever held by any military establishment. We cannot afford the luxury of apathy, lethargy, or confusion about what our mission is or what our professional aspirations should be. Each of us who dons the military uniform identifies himself with a special class that must demand an almost religious adherence to the highest personal and professional standards. Those who do not accept this commitment are not professional, nor are they desirable in the corps.
Notes
1. Soldatengeist: Eine
Deutung aua Bekenntnissen der Front (“Spirit
of Soldiery: An Interpretation of Confessions from the Front”). No author.
2. Ibid., p. 148.
3. Colonel Ladson G. Eskridge, Jr., “Ethical Judgements of a Group of Air Force Officers,” unpublished
research report on a project assigned by the Chief of Staff, USAF, Project
Director: Colonel (Chaplain) Wallace I. Wolverton,
4. Ibid., pp. 65-361.
5. Lieutenant Colonel Milton Frank, “The Low
Prestige Attributed to the Air Force Officer Career by College Educated Adult
Civilians and ‘New Approach’ to Raising It,” unpublished master’s thesis,
Captain Howard G. Janssen (B.A.,
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor