Morality in the Military: Whose Problem?

Consider the moral responsibility of the captain. The higher the moral character of a society, whether it be shipboard, or a city, or a nation, the lower the crime rate will be in that society. The lower the moral state, the higher the crime rate will be, along with a greater difficulty in enforcing the criminal code.

This responsibility of the captain is not my opinion; it is the current position of the Navy. Of first importance is the article in the U.S. Navy Regulations which places the commanding officer as the chief inspector of virtue or the lack of it.

1102. Requirement of Exemplary Conduct.
All commanding officers and others in authority in the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination; to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices and to correct, according to the laws and regulations of the Navy, all persons who are guilty of them, and to take all necessary and proper measures, under the laws, regulation, and customs of the naval service, to promote and safeguard the morals, the physical well-being, and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons under their command or charge (IOUSC5947) [italics are mine].

The commanding officer has in this a great challenge to his leadership. But the task is important, as one training manual recognizes:

The moral of this chapter is that when people are moral, the moral power that binds them together and fits them for action is given its main chance for success.

There should, therefore, be no confusion about how the word is being used. We are speaking both of training morals for everyday living and of moral training that will harden the will of a fighting body. One moment's reflection will show why they need not be considered separately. American Armed Force's doctrine states that when people conduct lives built on high moral standards and physical fitness, they tend to develop qualities that produce inspired leadership and discipline. It is not a new notion; it can be found in any great military force in the past. It was not developed to gratify clergy or reassure parents. That is important, but the fundamental idea is that it works!

The doctrine comes from the nation's experiences in war and what the Armed Forces learned by measuring their own services. Happily, the facts are consistent with a common-sense evaluation of the case.

Let's figure it out. The hedonist cry of "All things in excess! Moderation is for monks!" may work for pleasure chasers, but not for the Armed Forces. To be temperate in all things, to be content and to refrain from loose living of any sort are acts of will. They require self-denial and forgoing what may be more momentarily attractive in favor of things that should be done. Some individuals are never tempted to digress morally, but the rest of us are all too human. What we renounce in the name of self-discipline, sometimes at the cost of considerable inner stress, we endeavor to compensate for by the gain in personal character. It isn't easy, but only the most cynical observers deny its worth.

The strength of will that enables a person to lead a clean life is no different from the strength of purpose that equips that person to follow a hard line of duty. They go hand in hand, and both are necessary. When strength of purpose or will fails, it is possible still to find first-class fighters, but not officers. Vices or weaknesses are not things to be proud of, but to be overcome. The nature of the beast is that we all have weaknesses or vices. It's called being human. As Seneca said about Hannibal, "He conquered by weapons, but was conquered by his vices.” (The Armed Forces Officer, pages 61-62)