Character or Institution? Virtues or Rules?

From their origins in Greek and Latin, the words ethics and morality have always contained an in-built ambivalence. Are they primarily concerned with individual character-building and virtue, or are they first and foremost about societal customs, habits, rules, systems, and institutions? And to add to that quandary: what is the relationship between the two levels? A brief introduction to this double issue of the Journal of Military Ethics can do little to address such a complex problem. But the basic, underlying question – and its accompanying ambivalence – should always be kept in mind as we read the contributions to military ethics found within our pages. After all, the most virtuous of human beings can hit a brick wall when faced with a corrupt system or with institutions that do not appreciate or employ their competence. Likewise, institutions built for great tasks can come to naught if there is no one to realize their potential and mission, or if individuals or groups destroy them through sabotage, incompetence, or corruption. Good systems must be maintained by good people. And good people must find their place within good systems. Often, however, one is better than the other, making for controversies and conflicts. To add to the complexity, we are faced with a pedagogical question, as well: Should we start with the proper ethical education of each individual, or should we start by creating the ethical institutions within which the individual can subsequently thrive? In practice, of course, the two must be developed side by side. It is the belief of this journal that critical ethical discussions of the one level should never come at the expense of equally serious discussions about the other. The ethical convictions of the individual – grounded, for instance, in an obligation towards the Golden Rule, discussed and analyzed in this double issue of our journal – can make a real difference as concrete decisions are made, either by high-ranking commanders or by more or less strategic corporals. But no less of a difference can be made by institutions bound by well-founded rules and deep-seated institutional habits. So there we are, caught in the dialectic – indeed, the tension – between virtues and rules, between the individual and society. This dialectical tension shows us also that ethics is never static. It is formed and realized in diverse historical and cultural contexts. One fascinating piece in this issue reminds us of the way in which ethics can be strongly – many would say too strongly – linked to a particular historical or national legacy. Another pleads for the importance of the basics of military ethics seen from the point of view of cultures and militaries that stand in danger of paying merely lip service to ethics. Of special importance, as we face these tensions, is the dialogue between academics and practitioners, beautifully carried on by two important contributions to this issue, one on soldier identity and another on soldier enhancements. Both comb through