Module 5 Discussion Special Obligations and Role Morality
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
NAV101
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by AmbassadorFogZebra6
Module 5 Discussion Instructions The case study, video, and reading give rise to interesting and difficult moral questions about special obligations. Even if we know that service members have extra moral obligations by virtue of being service members, it is hard to tell how “far”
those “extra” moral obligations go. Please respond to the following prompts after reviewing the learning materials for Module 5.
In your own words, define special obligations and role morality.
What kind of special moral obligations are you taking on by entering into military service?
What are the rules that apply to enemy service personnel, and what are the rules applying to foreign civilians?
Finally, do you think the captain of the H.M.S.
Alacrity
did the right thing by calmly accepting an order that would risk his life and the lives of his crew? Explain.
Re-read the case study "Per Diem" located on the Module 5 Learning Materials
page. You’ve considered what the right thing to do is from the perspective of constraints and consequences.
Now consider special obligations. What kind of special obligations, if any, do you have to
your friend Grace?
Do the special obligations you might have to Grace mean that you should falsify your expense report to help her?
How are your special obligations to Grace in tension with considerations of constraints and consequences? (In other words, do your special obligations tell you to do something
opposite to what constraints or consequences tell you?)
Special obligations and role morality are the obligations that a person takes on voluntarily when signing a contract, entering into a certain profession, or entering into a certain relationship - sometimes relationships aren't voluntary, like having an obligation to siblings or parents, but more often than not, they are voluntary. When it comes to contractual agreements or enter into a profession, these obligations are something that you willingly accepted when you
signed the contract and/or accepted the job. Obligations that stem from relationship-type situations stem from the idea that you care about the person and feel some type of moral obligation to them, in most cases. When a person enters military service, you take on an obligation to your country and its citizens. That can include an obligation to uphold the values of the country, follow the lawful orders given to you, and go to war to fight for the protection of your own country's citizens and sometimes even the citizens of allied countries, as well. Now that joining the military is 100% voluntary, there can be a big moral confliction for some people that have joined because they may say, "it's just a job," as in they’ve only joined for a steady income, job security, or the educational benefits, but at the end of the day, they signed the same contract and agreed to uphold the same moral values as someone that joined purely for patriotic reasons. In the case of enemy service personnel and foreign civilians, our obligation to them is established in the Geneva Conventions. According to the American Red Cross (2011), the First
Geneva Convention establishes protection for sick and wounded soldiers, medical personnel and facilities, sick and wounded civilian support personnel, and military Chaplains. The Second Geneva Convention is an adaptation of the First Geneva Convention to reflect "at sea" conditions. The Third Geneva Convention establishes rules regarding the treatment of Prisoners of War - specifically that they should receive adequate shelter, food, clothing, and medical care, as well as generally be treated humanely. The Fourth Geneva Convention is the one that address
non-combatant civilians in areas of conflict including medical personnel and facilities that should be regarded as "safe zones". This Convention includes protections against murder, mutilation, torture, safety, religious practices, being taken as a hostage, etc. and also includes an
obligation of the occupying force to provide humanitarian services to these people as well. I personally do believe that the Captain of the H.M.S. Alacrity did the right thing when he accepted the order because of two different reasons. First, he was given a direct, lawful order by someone that was appointed over him, which is considered to be a special obligation he accepted when he joined the military. Secondly, he probably ended up saving many more lives than he sacrificed by going mine-hunting ahead of the other ships. The only thing I wonder about is how he presented this mission to his crew and how they reacted to it. Referring back to the Per Diem reading, personally I think that I would feel a special obligation to Grace because she has been my friend for so long and also because she has a child. By telling us that the per diem would help cover 3 weeks’ worth of her daughter's medication that they are paying for out of pocket, I would say that Grace definitely played on my emotions a little bit and I feel some sort of obligation to help the child as well, not just Grace. Relating that to our reading, it's kind of the same situation that was presented in the Role Morality, Special Obligations and Private Values and Conscience
reading from this module when it said that a person might feel an obligation help a child that is drowning, but not as much of an obligation as the child's mother would feel. But, just because I feel some sort of moral obligation to Grace doesn't mean that I should help her by falsifying my expense reports, but it would probably make me more likely to help her out. If I am that close to her, I'm probably close to her child as well, and I think that the moral obligation to help my friend's sick child would probably be pretty strong. On the other hand, I also have a general moral obligation
not to lie and steal from the government. Additionally, when I was granted use of my actual government travel card and introduced to the whole concept of per diem in my own career, I vaguely remember having to sign a statement of understanding that probably included something about not falsifying my expense reports. If that was the case, then I would technically have a special obligation as a travel card holder NOT to falsify my results, and that obligation is actually in writing and signed for. In my essay from Module 3, I applied both the universalization test and the mere means test to this situation and both results were negative in
nature. Now, having to think about the ultimate consequences of falsifying expense reports, you weigh the benefit of Grace having the money to pay for her daughter's medication against disadvantages such as the comptroller getting in trouble for paying someone inaccurately, the comptroller having to increase their workload and potential stressors by having to do an investigation into the expense reports, both Grace and I getting in trouble for falsifying reports, or even Grace's child not receiving her medication because Grace can't afford it and possibly
getting sicker, the situation becomes even trickier because there are negative effects to both sides of the situation. If I was in this situation in real life, I think that I would probably just give Grace the difference of $30 and convince her not to falsify the reports so that we don't feel the need to falsify the reports AND Grace's child gets her medication. That seems like the simplest solution to me. References:
American Red Cross. (2011). Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional Protocols
. https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/
International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help